1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4103 OF 2010 Sham S/o Limbaji Thavare Age : 27 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Anandgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for applicant. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 18 th November, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The application is for bail. 2. The applicant is the real brother of the deceased. He lodged F.I.R. (Exhibit-A) on 29th March, 2010 to the effect that in the early morning at about 2 a.m. his brother's wife i.e. Meerabai called him, and therefore, he and his wife opened the door of their house and came out. They noticed that his brother, namely, Vishwambhar was lying in pull of blood. His neck was sliced by some sharp edged weapon. All of them, therefore, started loudly crying, and therefore, the neighbours gathered there. The applicant submitted the report to the effect that some unknown 2 persons committed murder of his deceased brother while the deceased was in slumber in the courtyard of the house. 3. The applicant was arrested by the police due to suspicion because previously there were some dispute between him and the deceased. The mother of the deceased also confirmed suspicion. It appears that an axe was recovered from the applicant and was allegedly found to be stained with blood. His clothes were also recovered. 4. The charge sheet is filed after due investigation. Now the applicant is unlikely to cause any influence over the witnesses. 5. The prosecution case depends upon the circumstantial evidence, particularly, recovery of an axe which was found to bear stains of blood. C.A. report does not indicate blood group of stains found on the edge of an axe. The only conduct found to be suspicious is said to be unruffled reaction of the applicant after the alleged revelation of murder of his brother. It is of common knowledge that reaction may differ from person to person and same reaction can not be expected to judge the conduct of each one. There is no evidence on record to show that immediately before the alleged incident, there was any quarrel 3 between the deceased and the applicant or that there was immediate motive for him to do away with the life of the deceased. 6. Considering the foregoing reasons, the applicant deserves liberty during pendency of the Sessions trial, on certain conditions. Hence, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing the bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand) along with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions and on condition that he shall not enter the limits of Majalgaon Taluka during the period of pendency of the Sessions Case, except regular visits required to be made to Majalgaon for attending of the Sessions trial. He shall never visit the village locality even on such dates when he will be required to attend the sessions case under the guise, he was required to travel through native village i.e. Anandgaon and shall make no attempt to contact with any of the witnesses. Any breach of such condition would entail cancellation of bail. The application is disposed of accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri4103.10