1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.670 OF 2010 Kishan S/o.Sambhaji Jagtap, Age-40 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Bhandegaon, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Officer, Police Station Rural Hingoli, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.698 OF 2010 Baliram S/o.Sambhaji Jagtap, Age-35 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Bhandegaon, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Officer, Police Station Rural Hingoli, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENT Mr.H.V.Patil, learned counsel for applicant in both the applications. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 24/02/2010 2 PER COURT : 1. Both these applications were moved by the respective applicants for their release in connection with CR No.149/2009, registered in Hingoli (Rural) Police Station, for the offence punishable u/s. 302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC. The applicant in Cri.Appl.No.670/10 is the brother in law of deceased Kanhopatra, while applicant in Cri.Appl.No.698/10 is the husband of deceased. Hence both these applications to be disposed of by way of common order. Both the applicants were arrested in connection with this offence on 25/12/2009 and since then are in custody. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. It is not under dispute that deceased Kanhopatra was married with applicant in Cri.Appl.698/10, about 9 years back. On 14/12/2009, she was not found at her residence, hence missing complaint was lodged by the husband of deceased and accordingly informed to the father of deceased, the complainant herein. On 19/12/2009, dead body of Kanhopatra was found floating in one well and it was immediately informed to the father of deceased. After the dead body was taken out, and completing necessary formalities, the dead body was sent to post mortem. It is not under dispute that during the post mortem, no external injuries were noticed on the body of deceased. The probable cause of death as per the post 3 mortem is auspecia due to drowning. Considering these submissions across the bar, this is not a case of direct evidence of homicidal death of deceased at the hands of these applicants and later on thrown the dead body in the well to conceal the death of deceased. So far as circumstances are concerned, there are no witnesses coming forth or evidence is available showing these applicants seen last together alongwith deceased in the field, where the dead body of deceased was found in the well. Thus the circumstances other than the undisputed relationship, nothing is against these applicants. Statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation also do not throw any light on this aspect. Considering this overall evidence collected during the investigation, and the statement of material witnesses are already recorded, there are no chances of interfering in the investigation or tampering of the prosecution witnesses at the hands of applicant. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail, when they are in custody for more than 60 days. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Both the applications are allowed. 2. Applicants in both the applications be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. Applications stand disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.670-10