1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3746 OF 2009 Vasant S/o.Sangram Tiprale, and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.P.Patil, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 13/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present applications, the applicants have approached this Court for their release in connection with Crime No.99/2009, registered in Chakur Police Station of Dist. Latur for an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard Shri.N.P.Patil, followed by the submissions of learned APP Shri.Shaikh appearing for State. As notice of this application was already given to the prosecution, papers of investigation were placed in my hand at the time of hearing of arguments in this application. 2 3. On the basis of complaint lodged by one Mirabai on 13/06/2009, an offence was registered vide CR No.99/2009 in Chakur Police Station, Dist. Latur wherein it is alleged that there is dispute about the agricultural land in between deceased and these accused as according to the complainant, the deceased has taken loan for which the land was mortgaged with these two applicants. There is some proceedings going on before the revenue authorities. In the evening these two applicants have approached to the deceased who is the father of the complainant and took away deceased with them. Thereafter the deceased was not seen at all. On the next day, the dead body of the deceased was found hanging to one Mango tree in the nearby field. Hence, the complaint was lodged against the applicant. Then the dead body was sent for postmortem. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against these accused. 4. It is urged across the bar that there is civil dispute between the parties on account of agricultural land owned by the deceased. According to the applicants, this land was purchased under the registered sale deed by these applicants. In the premise, it can not be said that a loan was advanced on mortgage of these lands as alleged in the complaint. Merely because the deceased was seen last in the company of these applicants, the liability about the death of deceased can not be fastened on these applicants. 5. On the basis of papers of investigation, learned APP opposed 3 the bail application. It is not under dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and not a case of direct evidence that the applicants were seen by any eye witness while committing the alleged act as projected in the complaint. But the fact remains that the death of the deceased is not a natural death, but a death by hanging which is a homicidal death. The inquest panchnama as well as the postmortem notes show that there is ligature marks on the neck of the deceased. Considering the position of the body found hanging to the mango tree in the field, the possibility of suicide as suggested by learned advocate appearing for the applicant can not be accepted as to commit a suicide or behind a suicide there must be some reason which is silent in the papers of investigation. As against this, the deceased was seen lastly in the company of applicants, and thereafter only the dead body of the deceased was found in the nearby field. Considering the dispute between the parties and the nature of death of the deceased, these circumstances at least at this stage as the deceased was last seen in the company of these applicants, the act of the applicants can not be ruled out. If they are released on bail, possibility of tampering of prosecution evidence also can not be ruled out. No case is made out to enlarge the accused on bail. Hence the bail application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3746-09