{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2010 Pooja w/o Parmeshwar Sapkal Age-26 years, Occ-Agril R/o Khande Pargaon, Tq & Dist-Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, police Station, Pimpalner Tq & Dist-Beed RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has moved this Court for her release on bail in connection with CR No. 56/2009 registered with Pimpalner police station, Dist-Beed for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the {2} submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation as charge sheet is filed in the court of JMFC, Beed. 3. It appears that dead bodies of two small kids, namely Ajay, aged about 6 years and Vijay, aged about 4 to 5 years, were found in a well in village Khande Pargaon, where the children had come to their grand mother, Jaibai. After the bodies were found, an ADR was registered. During inquiry u/s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, statement of Jaibai came to be recorded. It appears that, thereafter, after a period of 3 months FIR came to be registered against the applicant and two others. The applicant came to be arrested on 27th May 2009 and since then she is in jail. Again statement of said Jaibai came to be recorded on 27.05.2009 where she has disclosed that she had seen that the children had left the house along with the applicant and they did not see thereafter, however their dead bodies were found. It appears that no statement of the witnesses, who have seen the applicant along with her paramour and children near the well in which the dead bodies of the children are recovered, are recorded during the investigation. If this is the only evidence collected, then it can prima facie be inferred that the case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and not on direct evidence. 4. Bearing in mind the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and in view of the fact that the applicant, who is a lady, behind the bars for more than 7 months, and also {3} considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed on 24.11.2009 and other co-accused are released on bail, it is not desirable to detain the applicant behind the bars for an uncertain period. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail, however, by imposing certain conditions. 5. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on her furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicant is directed not to enter village Khande Pargoan, Tq & Dist-Beed till the trial against her is over. Violation of above condition would entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln77-10