1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 91 /2010 (Vijayllaxmi wd/o Santosh Pinka vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R P Joshi, Adv. for applicant Mr Dhote , APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2010. The applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with FIR No. 73/2009 reported on 31st March 2009 at Chandrapur City Police Station, under sections 302, 201 read with further section 34 IPC. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that although accusations are serious that deceased died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. It appears from the material collected during the investigation prima facie that the deceased was habitual drunkard. His dead body as well as motorcycle belonging to him, was found in the premises of the school. According to prosecution the present applicant had informed her brother and his brother along with police went to the spot and found the dead body. Some of the witnesses also stated that the present applicant was crying. Under these circumstances unless there is material to indicate that she had illicit relationship with one Girijaprasad and that they had 2 conspired together to kill the husband of the present applicant, the benefit of bail can not be denied to the present applicant. 2. According to learned APP the present applicant of her paramour were in telephonic communication; but it is not pointed out as to which Mobile phone was in possession of Girijaprasad, alleged paramour, and which mobile instrument was in possession of the present applicant with its Sim No. etc. Mere tabular details without further particulars in respect of telephone communication cannot help the prosecution. According to learned APP, there was communication. However,mere communication cannot help the prosecution. According to learned APP there was some recovery of articles, such as, rope, sleeping pills from the house of the present applicant at her instance. That by itself may not be sufficient to bring home the charge against the applicant. Be that as it may; it would be for the prosecution to bring sufficient evidence at the time of the trial as the case hinges on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged crime or destruction of evidence of murder. Considering that the applicant is a lady, aged about 28 years and, as reported by the learned Advocate for the applicant, that she is also having a nine year old adopted daughter to look after, I am inclined to grant conditional bail. Hence the order. The applicant be released upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two or more sureties in the 3 equal amount; provided further that the applicant shall inform her fixed address with telephone/cellphone number, if any, to the I.O. as well as the trial Court. She shall not communicate with witness or witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner. She shall not commit any crime while on bail. She shall attend the trial on each date of hearing before the trial Court. Application stands disposed of. Humdast granted. JUDGE sahare