IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3215 OF 2009 Lalitkumar Laxmi Narayan Sharma .... .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..... ...Respondent. Mr.A.M.Sarogi, Adv. for the Applicant Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP. for the State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. 4th August, 2009. PC: The present application is moved under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by the applicant who came to be arrested on 15.4.09 in connection with FIR No.183/09 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The applicant is in custody since the date of his arrest. 2. A complaint came to be lodged by the father of the deceased by name Jyoti who was aged 22 years and found dead at the residence of the complainant and the deceased on 13.4.09. According to the complainant the present applicant Lalitkumar was having love affair with deceased Jyoti. The applicant was carrying on transport business and one Abdul who resides nearby the building where in the applicant resides is said to be employee and working with the applicant. It is then stated that the said Abdul 1 has three sisters and one of them by name Reshma was also having love affair with the applicant. The deceased Jyoti disliked the applicant’s relation with Reshma and hence the deceased used to object to the applicant’s visit to the house of Abdul. Despite objections from the deceased the applicant continued his visit to Abdul’s residence and hence for last 3/4 days prior to the occurrence of incident the applicant and deceased had quarrel. On 12.4.09 the complainant had left for Nashik for supervising the work of construction of his house and was scheduled to return back from Nashik on 13.4.09. As the complainant was having cash of Rs.1 lacs with him he telephonically instructed the present applicant to reach Kalyan by about 9.00 p.m. The applicant had reached Kalyan at the agreed time with a view to accompany the complainant. However prior thereto by about 6.45/7.00 p.m. The deceased had telephoned the complainant and informed him that the present applicant would be reaching Kalyan to accompany the complainant. On the same day between 7.45 to 8.00 p.m. the applicant had telephoned the complainant and had narrated an incident which had taken place at the residence of Abdul. The applicant had informed the complainant that he had visited the residence of Abdul as 13th April happened to be birth day of Abdul. While the applicant was at the residence of Abdul, Jyoti reached at that place and picked up quarrel with the applicant by questioning as to how come applicant had visited the residence of Abdul. It has also come in the statement of one of the witnesses that the deceased Jyoti had caught the collar of the applicant’s shirt. On 2 being so informed by the applicant the complainant had tole him that he would talk to Jyoti in this regard and the complainant had telephoned Jyoti by 8.45 p.m. However the deceased did not pick up the call. When the applicant met the complainant at about 9.00 p.m. at Kalyan they together proceeded to residence of the complainant and on reaching the residential premises of the complainant it was noticed that the door was closed from inside and no one responded to the calls given from outside. Thus the complainant asked the present applicant and one Babloo to try and enter the premises from the rear side through the kitchen. Accordingly the applicant and Babloo had entered the premises and opened the main door. When the complainant entered the house he noticed that Jyoti was lying on the floor and an odhini was tied around her neck. Immediately the complainant and the applicant approached the Kalamboli police station and thereafter police arrived at the scene of offence. 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant the only circumstance which goes against the applicant is that there was quarrel between the applicant and deceased Jyoti at the residence of Abdul sometime prior to the death of Jyoti which fact the applicant himself had informed the complainant. It is also asserted that barring this circumstance of quarrel with the deceased and the applicant there is no other evidence and/or circumstance which could connect the applicant with the crime. It is then contended that this solitary circumstance cannot justify continued custody of the applicant. Learned APP does not dispute that barring the 3 circumstance of quarrel between the applicant and deceased at Abdul’s residence there is no other peace of evidence or circumstance available to connect the applicant with the crime. On instructions from the IO who is present in the Court learned APP further submits that despite best efforts the investigation has failed to collect any material or evidence against the applicant. It is a matter of record that charge sheet is already filed. 4. Perusal of the order passed by Sessions Court which rejected the application moved by the applicant for grant of bail reveals that the Sessions Court thought it fit to await result of finger print expert. A communication dated 30.5.09 addressed to the Senior Inspector of Kalamboli police station by Deputy Director of Finger Print (FP) CID MS Pune is perused. It is stated therein that one chance print developed on the ceiling fan in CR No.183/09 is unfit for comparison and is of no practical utility. Even the Sessions Court has observed in its order that “but from the record it appears that probably deceased hanged herself by climbing on stool kept on that cot and her Odhini was torn due to of her weight and in that jerk she had lost her life.” However bail was denied as the Court thought it better to await the result of finger print expert and nail clippings of the deceased and the applicant. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the applicant had entered the residential premises of the complainant at his request from rear side of the premises and hence assuming that some finger prints of the applicant are found at the residence of the complainant and the deceased the same is not going to be of much value to further the 4 case of the prosecution. The final report of finger print and the nail clipping is awaited and the IO who is present in the Court states that same is likely to take longer time which cannot even be stated by guess. Be that as it may, if and in case any incriminating material or evidence is obtained against the applicant by the investigation on receipt of the final report from the finger print bureau and if it is then found necessary to seek custody of the applicant it can be so applied for. The applicant is in custody for more than 3 ½ months. The investigation is complete. Charge sheet has been filed. There is no dispute that there is no evidence against the applicant barring a solitary circumstance of quarrel with the deceased prior to occurrence of incident at Abdul’s house. According to the learned counsel for the applicant this is a case of no evidence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated here in above I am of the clear view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence I pass the following order: The applicant Lalitkumar Laxmi Narayan Sharma shall be released on bail on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall attend Kalamboli police station once in a week on every Saturday between 4.00 to 7.00 p.m. I permit cash deposit of Rs.25,000/- towards bail amount for a period of two weeks. Application stands disposed of. 5