IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.1144 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1144 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1144 OF 2009 Shri Mahesh Shamrao Pawar, .. Applicant. Vs The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent. Mr A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Advocate, for the applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 09/04/200 DATE : 09/04/200 DATE : 09/04/2009 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr Saste, learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.o.144 of 2007 of Umbraj police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that on 20.11.2005 at about 3 am when the applicant and his deceased wife Rajshree alone were in the house, the applicant committed her murder. The cause of death, as mentioned in the post mortem notes, is "death due to asphyxia due to throttling." Immediately after the occurrence it appears that the accused called his neighbours and told them that she fell on the staircase and with their help he removed the deceased-Rajshree to the hospital where she was declared dead at about 5 am in the morning. Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited my attention to the statements of three witnesses, viz Nirmala Pendse, Sangita Deshmukh and Rajesh Deshmukh. He submitted that from the statements of these three witnesses, it appears that just before the alleged incident, the applicant had seen his wife in a compromise position with some stranger and having seen that, he seems to have committed the alleged offence. He submitted that the offence, therefore, would fall within the exception (1) to section 300 of IPC. I am not in favour of examining the case from this angle at this stage, and it is always open to the accused to raise such contention during trial and make his submissions good. However, looking to overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the argument advanced by Mr Mundargi, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, I pass the following order. . I direct that the applicant be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.35,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to condition that the applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Taluka Patan, Dist-Satara till conclusion of the trial and shall inform his address to the concerned police station where he proposes to reside during this period and shall also report to the nearest police station from the place of his residence on every alternate Sunday between 10 am and 11 am till conclusion of the trial. . While allowing this application, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)