abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3518 OF 2007 Hrishikesh Dattatray More .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.M.S. Karnik for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant has been arrested and is in custody since 11th June 2007 in connection with an offence registered by Pimpalgaon Police Station under C.R. No.77/2007 punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. 3. The applicant is the son of the deceased. The - 2 - body of the deceased was found on 20th May 2007 at about 10.20 a.m. and it was found that the deceased was killed in the night between 19th and 20th May 2007. The body was identified by the two sons of the deceased, one of whom was the applicant. There is no eye witness to the crime. The FIR lodged by the elder brother of the applicant does not name the applicant as the probable culprit. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that there are three circumstances pointing to the applicant. They are - (i) the deceased wanted to sell some ancestral land but the applicant was opposed to the said sale, (ii) the conduct of the applicant on seeing the body of the father was suspicious inasmuch as instead of crying, he started abusing and shouting that he would kill the persons who had killed his father, and (iii) blood stained shirt was recovered from the house of the applicant. 5. As regards the allegation that the applicant was opposed to the sale of the land which the deceased had desired to sell, it must be stated that neither in the FIR dated 20th May 2007 nor for a period of 2 months thereafter, the complainant or anybody else stated about the proposed sale and opposition by the applicant. In any event, the motive is too weak. If there were - 3 - serious differences on that count between the complainant or any other family members they would have certainly expressed that as a motive in the FIR or in the subsequent statements. 6. As regards the conduct of the applicant on seeing the body of his father and shouts that he would kill the persons who had killed his father, the same is nothing but natural and it cannot be said it is a pointer against the applicant. 7. As regards the blood stained clothes, though several clothes were seized, small blood stain was noticed only on one of the shirts of the applicant. Blood group on the shirt has not been identified by the chemical analyser. The blood group of the applicant has not been analysed. 8 The applicant is in custody for more than 7 months. During the period of 7 months, no other incriminating material has been found against the applicant. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. 9. Taking an overall view of the matter, the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order: - 4 - ORDER ORDER ORDER The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each subject to the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and attend the concerned police station once a month between 1st and 5th of every British calendar month. (b) The applicant shall not make any inducement nor give any threats to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (c) All observations made in this order are prima facie and shall not be taken into consideration at the stage of trial. . Application is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)