1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2361 of 2009 Anandrao v. State -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.S. Kurekar, Adv for applicant Mr A. Parihar, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 20th July 2009 1. Heard Mr Kurekar, learned counsel for applicant and Mr Parihar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State. Applicant has filed this application for grant of bail in Crime No. 160/08 registered with Police Station, Umrer for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the applicant himself lodged report on 27.11.2008 that he out of anguish, felled his wife Sangita down, sat on her chest and caused her murder by throttling. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the so-called FIR cannot be used against applicant as evidence for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel without prejudice to this submission, has prayed for sympathetic view on the ground that applicant has responsibility of two children to shoulder. Learned APP, on the other hand, has contended that after throttling and killing his wife, applicant himself lodged report and that report is well admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 2 Further-more, there are statements of three eye witnesses who have clearly implicated applicant in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned APP further contends that there is circumstantial evidence also in the form of post- mortem note indicating that Santiga died due to asphyxia due to throttling. 4. In the light of the submissions advanced at the Bar, I have perused the material collected during the course of investigation, particularly, statements of Laxman, Nandabai and Chhabibai as also post-mortem note. It is no doubt true that apart from material indicating direct evidence, there is circumstantial evidence in the form of post-mortem note to prima facie establish complicity of applicant in the crime in question which is punishable with death or life imprisonment. Contention of learned counsel for applicant that applicant has two children to maintain, cannot persuade me to allow his bail application considering nature and gravity of the offence and probable sentence on conviction. If released on bail, in such case, accused may either abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence and influence prosecution witnesses. Considering the nature of accusation being serious and the fact that there is material which is direct one prima facie showing involvement of applicant- accused in serious offence of murder, no case is made out for grant of bail. Application is, therefore, rejected. 5. Learned counsel for applicant at this stage prays for early hearing of trial. In view of facts and circumstances, learned trial Court is expected to hear sessions case as early as possible. Judge. hsj