1 CA 5327.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5327 OF 2010 Jagdish Suresh Patil .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.S.V.Marwadi for the applicant. Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for the State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 25th JANUARY, 2011. P.C.: 1. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.50 of 2010 registered with Saphale police station, District Thane under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the present applicant was in love with the deceased – Arshala and they were to get married. The deceased was living with her maternal grand-mother at Maikhop, Palghar. On 18.5.2010 when Pramila, who is mother of the deceased, went there, oral dispute was going on between the present applicant – Jagdish and her daughter – Arshala. It is alleged that on enquiry by Pramila, the accused told her that Arshala was not on proper line, indicating doubt about her character. When she further enquired, he also said that Arshala could be asked about it and then Arshala disclosed that she had 2 CA 5327.10 gone alongwith three boys but had not done anything wrong. There is evidence to show that the applicant and Arshala were together on 20.5.2010. The present applicant had been to the house of grand-mother of Arshala where she was living and at about 11.00 am both of them left the house. After that on the same day dead body of Arshala was found in the pond of water of creek. The injuries on body reveals that she was stabbed and was thrown in the water. The death occurred due to drowning. There is recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at the instance of the accused at a short distance from the place where dead body was found. 3. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There are two witnesses to establish that the accused was seen last together with the deceased and shortly after that dead body was found. The incriminating articles were recovered. If the accused is granted bail there is possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is not in interest of justice to grant bail. 4. For the aforesaid reasons the application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA, J)