(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3264 of 2011 Kamaji Gangaram Dudde, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Chikna, Taluka : Dharmabad, District : Nanded (Now in jail). .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Dharmabad, District : Nanded. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 45/2011 registered with Police Station, Dharmabad (District : Nanded) [i.e. earlier Crime No. 39/2011 registered with Police Station, Umari (District : Nanded)], for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 365 of IPC. 3. It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Madhavrao s/o. Sonbaji Lingade, on 10-5-2011. There before, missing complaint was lodged on 17-4-2011 in respect of deceased Pandhari. It is alleged that there were illicit relations of deceased Pandhari with wife of co-accused Ananda s/o. Maroti Lingade i.e. maternal uncle of the applicant herein. Accused persons had suspicion over the deceased in respect of said illicit relations, and hence, having grudge in the mind, the applicant along with two other accused, took the deceased on motorcycle and committed murder by strangulation and destroyed the evidence so as to screen the offender from punishment. The body was completely (3) decomposed but it was identified by the relatives, and accordingly, offence came to be registered on 10-5-2011. 4. Learned Adv. Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, for the applicant, has pointed out that although allegations are in respect of strangulation of the victim, but the post mortem report is otherwise which discloses causes of death of the victim, due to starvation and mental illness and falling into water canal. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that the prosecution case is based on totally circumstantial evidence, and there is no direct evidence against the applicant herein. Moreover, it is canvassed that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and there is no necessity of the applicant keeping in custody furthermore, and hence, urged that the applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonawane, for the respondent, has countered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant, and submitted that there is strong motive against the applicant since the victim Pandhari had illicit relations with the wife of co-accused Ananda, who is maternal uncle of the applicant. Moreover, the applicant only called Ananda prior to committal of the murder of Pandhari. It is further canvassed that the applicant and victim Pandhari were last seen together and (4) accordingly, although it is submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, there is strong motive and theory of last seen together and there is strong incriminating evidence against the applicant herein. 6. The investigation papers were made available by the learned APP for the perusal purpose, and after perusal of the investigation papers and contents of the FIR, and also considering submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, at the outset, admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the applicant and prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and theory of last seen together. Moreover, apparently, there is variance between the allegations and post mortem notes in respect of cause of death, since allegations are that the victim was strangulated, whereas post mortem notes disclose the cause of death due to starvation, mental illness and falling into water canal. Moreover, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, and therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody furthermore. 7. In the circumstances, present Criminal Application deserves to be allowed, and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one surety in the like amount, on the condition that (5) the applicant shall give attendance before learned Trial Court once in a quarter and also, that the applicant shall not influence upon the prosecution witnesses and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly, and present Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3264