1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3832 OF 2009 Ashok S/o.Bapurao Kolekar, Age-36 years, Occu-Labourer, R/o.Dagadwadi, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, Police Station, Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded RESPONDENT Mr.Ravi Nirmal h/f. Mr.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 05/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.12/2009, registered in Hadgaon Police Station of Dist. Nanded for an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w.34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, and the papers of 2 investigation discloses that the alleged incident was occurred on 29/01/2009 as the dead body of Suman was found in decomposed condition in the river bed near the field of village Hardap, and on that basis, complaint came to be lodged on 02/02/2009 in Hadgaon Police Station against the applicant and one another. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with said offence on 03/02/2009. He is husband of deceased Suman. There are allegations in the complaint that this applicant has an illicit relations with another lady by name Kavita and on that count, there was dispute between deceased and the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for applicant prayed to release the applicant on bail mainly on two grounds that this is not a case of direct evidence, but it is a case of circumstantial evidence against the accused as the statement of his sons recorded during the investigation and to whom they were termed as eye witnesses was recorded in the month of May 2009 when the alleged incident took place on 29/01/2009. It is tried to bring to the notice of this Court that these two sons of the applicant were the students studying in the school and residing at Ashram School. The record collected from the school indicates that on 29/01/2009, they were present not only in the school, but also in the hostel. In the premise, according to the applicant, there is no possibility that their statements might have recorded as demonstrated by the prosecution. Other than this, according to the applicant, there is no evidence to connect the applicant accused with this offence. 5. As against this, it is urged across the bar that whether these 3 statements to be believed or not that point to be considered at the time of trial. Apart from it, the ornaments of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the applicant. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar, one thing I require to bear it in mind that even though the statements of 2 sons of the applicant were recorded in the course of investigation, the fact can not be easily brushed out whether the presence of these sons of applicant is possible at the time of alleged incident when their presence is shown in the school as well as in the hostel. In the premise, it is very risky to rely upon these statements at least at this stage. In the premise, considering the fact that the applicant is behind bars since the month of Feb. 2009 i.e. from last 11 months and now the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed before the competent Court of Law, a case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. In the premise, following is the order - O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the sum of like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant is prohibited to contact his sons till commencement of trial before the concerned Court of Sessions. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.3832-09