1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2487 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.418/2008 (Vilas Jairam Kirnapure .vs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. V.N. Morande, Advocate for Applicant/Appellant. Mr. S.D. Doifode, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &, A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Deceased Meena was the wife of appellant Vilas Kirnapure. She was member of Mahila Bachat Gat. On 1.12.2003 there was meeting of Mahila Bachat Gat at the house of Kamlabai Anandrao Raut (PW6). It seems that at that time Meena said something about illicit relations between Subhash s/o Anandrao Raut and one Ranjana w/o Deepak Kirnapure. This was told by Archana d/o Anandrao Kirnapure to her mother Kamlabai. 3. On 3.12.2003 in the evening Ranjana Kirnapure went to the house of Meena, brought her to the house of Kamlabai and asked her to 2 prove the alleged illicit relations. Meena confessed to have made such allegations. The appellant slapped his wife Meena and dragged her to home. Thereafter the appellant went to Pan Shop and returned. 4. In the night, the appellant made a hue and cry that his wife Meena was not at home. During the same night the appellant and some villagers went in search of Meena. A tin and a pair of chappals was found near a well situated in a field. A shawl was also found floating in a well. All these articles were identified by the appellant to be that of his wife Meena. However, no attempt was made in the night to search Meena in the well. On the next day, the appellant informed P.S. Armori who swung into action. The dead body of Meena was found in the well, it was taken out. Autopsy revealed that the cause of her death was throttling. According to the appellant he had no grudge against his wife. On the contrary some other persons had grudge against her and they might have been involved in killing her. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the circumstances narrated above are not enough to prove the guilt of the appellant and that he is entitled to be released on bail. 5. We are unable to agree with these submissions. It may be noted that in the night on 3 3.12.2003 the appellant was with his wife Meena in the house. The appellant is the person who last saw Meena alive. Thereafter he also saw her chappals and shawl near the well. However, he kept mum during the entire night and reported the matter to the Police on the next day. All these circumstances have been considered by the trial Court against the appellant. There is strong case supporting conviction of the appellant. Hence we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai