{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3718 OF 2009 Mahesh Vitthal Bhawar, Age­21 years, Occ­Agri R/o Prabhu­Pimpri, Tq­Pathardi, Dist­Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 10 th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.186/2009 registered with Pathardi police station u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, after the earlier application is withdrawn by him with a liberty to move fresh application after filing of the charge sheet. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Learned APP has {2} made available the investigation papers for my perusal. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the victim girl Sonali aged about 11 years found missing from the house of her great grand mother, as she had left the house with the message that she is going to play. Thereafter she was not found. It is further story of the prosecution that on 21st May 2009 a dead body of a female child was found and on the basis of the same an ADR came to be registered with the Pathardi police station. Thereafter, on 16.07.2009, on the basis of suspicion, a complaint came to be lodged against the present applicant for an offence punishable u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant came to be arrested on the same day and since then he is in jail. As the investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed, the applicant has approached this Court with a prayer to release him on bail. 4. On perusal of the investigation papers it is clear that this is not a case of direct evidence, however, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. When it is a case of circumstantial evidence, at least two points are required to be considered. Firstly, as to whether there is previous acquittance of the applicant with the deceased and secondly whether there is any theory of the prosecution that the deceased was last seen together with the applicant. On perusal of the investigation papers I do not found any disclosure from any of the witness that there was previous {3} acquittance of the applicant with the deceased. Though all the witnesses have stated that before the occurrence of the alleged incident the applicant used to visit the village and after occurrence of the incident he has stopped visiting the said village, yet there is no disclosure that the deceased and the applicant are seen together just before the occurrence of the incident. Prima faice, this is a fit case where the applicant deserves liberty. 5. Considering the fact that investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed and on perusal of the evidence, it can safely be said that this is a fit case where the applicant needs to be enlarged on bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/­ and on executing a PR bond in the like amount. The applicant to attend the Pathardi police station on every Sunday between 12.00 noon and 3.00 p., till the opening of the trial. The application is disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3718­09