1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4193 OF 2009 1. Tukaram S/o.Vijay Rathod, Age-21 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Gondemahagaon, Tal. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded 2. Vijay S/o.Umaji Rathod, Age-50 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Gondemahagaon, Tal.Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 3. Narendra S/o.Vijay Rathod, Age-23 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Gondemahagaon, Tal.Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 15/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed for their release on bail in connection with CR No.56/2009, registered in Islampur Police Station of Dist. Nanded for an offence punishable 2 u/s.302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation as the investigation is already over in this crime, charge sheet is filed against all the applicant accused before the Court of Law on 07/09/2009, while all these applicants were arrested on 06/07/2009 in connection with this crime. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, it appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Vitthal Ramrao Chavan as the dead body of her daughter Anita was found in partially haning condition in front of his house in the early morning of 06/07/2009. It is the disclosure in the said complaint that this Anita was married on 16/05/2009 with one Sandip Rathod. It appears that at the time of marriage, the said Anita was pregnant and she was carrying from the first applicant. When it realizes, she again got married on 22/05/2009 with applicant no.1, even though her marital relations with Sandip were in existence, and since then she was residing with applicant no.1. Applicant no.2 is father in law and applicant no.3 is brother in law of deceased. It appears that on suspicion, all these persons were implicated and arrayed as an accused in the said offence. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the case is based on circumstantial 3 evidence and there is no direct evidence about death of deceased of whose dead body was found in partially hanging condition in front of house of complainant. The cause of death which discloses from the notes of post mortem is that death was occurred due to asphyxia due to strangulation and there are 3 ligature marks, one above the level of thyroid cartilage, second at the level of thyroid cartilage and third below the level of thyroid cartilage, which fact required to be considered. When the dead body was found in front of house of complainant, already one rope was found around the neck of deceased of which another point was found tied to the upper portion at the outside of house of complainant. It is also brought to the notice that at the instance of the first applicant, one piece of rope was recovered. The rope which was recovered found tied to the neck of deceased and the rope which was recovered at the instance of first applicant, both were sent for CA. The report of CA shows that some blood stains were found to the rope which was found tied to the neck of the deceased. As against this, no such blood stains were found on the rope which was recovered at the instance of the applicant. It is to be noted that blood of the deceased was not collected for blood grouping purpose and if it is so, according to learned counsel for applicant, even if the blood is found on the rope, it can not be said that there is incriminating circumstance against the present applicant. The statement of one witness recorded during the course of investigation in whose statement, the fact revealed that in the earlier evening, the deceased was found in the company of present applicant. Now it is to be considered that whether this incident can 4 said to be an incriminating circumstance against the applicants. As against applicant no.2 and 3, there is no iota of evidence. 5. Learned APP appearing for State opposed to enlarge the applicants on bail on the ground that according to him, these applicants are responsible for the death of Anita on the count of her illegal relations with first applicant before her marriage. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar, one fact is clear that so far as the death of deceased Anita is concerned, the case of prosecution do not stand on direct evidence, but rests on circumstantial evidence. If deceased had married with first applicant on 22/05/2009, and residing with first applicant, then she was found in the company of first applicant in the earlier evening prior to dead body of Anita was found in partially hanging condition in front of house of complainant, can not be said to be an incriminating circumstance against the applicants. Finding of no incriminating circumstance on the rope which was recovered at the instance of first applicant also can not be said to be a circumstance incriminating against the first applicant. If it is so, the circumstances which were brought on record, at least on the face of it, not sufficient to say that an incriminating evidence against applicants, then the case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. The applicants be released on bail on furnishing surety in the 5 sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, the applicants not to leave the local jurisdiction without prior permission in writing from the Investigation Officer concerned. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri-appl-4193-09