1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1663 OF 2009 1. Rama s/o. Poshetti Angulwar, 2. Dhrupadabai w/o. Rama Angulwar, Both R/o. Sawna, Tq. Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanded. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. G.P. Shinde, Advocate for applicants. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 12th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. The applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 15/2009 registered at Himayatnagar Police Station on 11th March 2009, alleging the offences punishable under sections 302, 498, 376 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicants are husband and wife and parents of other three accused. On 11th March 2009 dead body of victim Ashabai, the wife of accused Santosh, was found in his agricultural field. Ashabai married Santosh about 7 years back and had two children. Soon the 2 discovery of the dead body reported to police, police registered the offence and the investigation started. The sniffer dog was called for the purpose of investigation. The dog was shown a stick which was found near the dead body. After sniffing the stick, the dog went up to accused Poshetti (not the applicants) and started barking at him, indicating the accused Poshetti had touched the stick in question which was found near the dead body of the deceased. Besides this, there is allegation through the witnesses that the applicants who happened to be in laws of the deceased, used to harass her over their demand of dowry. The material against the applicants is not strong enough to deny them bail. Besides, they are aged more than 65 years. The applicants deserve bail. 3. Before I part with this order, I must mention that the manner in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded has passed his order on the applicants' bail application on 6th May 2009 is far from the satisfactory. The learned Judge mentioned clearly in his order that there was no direct evidence against the applicants and the prosecution case was based on the circumstantial evidence. In stead of discussing the circumstantial evidence, he simply said that the prosecution may be given further opportunity for investigation, as if by then the investigation was still incomplete. The incident had taken place on 11th March 2009 and the learned Judge was passing this order on 6th May 2009. During this passage of time, the investigation must have been over. What else remained in the investigation to be done, has not been 3 clarified by the learned Judge. The learned Judge atleast should have considered the fact that the applicant No. 2 is a woman, aged about 70 years. 4. The applicants are released on bail of Rs.5000/- each with one surety in the like amount. [ A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ] ssc/criapln1663.09