{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3635 OF 2009 Govind s/o Madhukarrao Kadam APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 30th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.09/2009 registered with Kundalwadi Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. As charge sheet is already filed, the papers of investigation are made available by the learned APP for my perusal. {2} 3. It appears that the FIR came to be lodged on 16.03.2009 on the compliant of police Patil, who saw the dead body in a partially burnt condition. On the basis of said compliant the offence came to be registered against unknown persons. 4. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the dead body was of one Nagnath and the same was identified by his wife Jyoti. Statements of the witnesses came to be recorded. It transpired that there was dispute in respect of land between the applicant and the deceased. On the previous night of the incident, a quarrel had taken place at the hotel of one Narayan and prior to that also quarrel had taken place at the residence between the applicant and the deceased wherein threats were given by both the sides to each other. Most important aspect is that statements of the eye witnesses are recorded, which disclose that the deceased was assaulted by the applicant with a hollow brick which is also recovered during the investigation. 5. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that this is a case of circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence to link the accused with the alleged incident. It urged that, in absence of any specific motive behind the crime, and as the case stands on circumstantial evidence, which is a weak piece of evidence and that now the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed and also that the applicant is in jail since March 2009, he be released on bail. {3} 6. The application is opposed by the learned APP. 7. Perusal of the Postmortem notes shows that the probable cause of death is due to head injury as well as partial burn injuries. The injuries mentioned in the Postmortem report indicate that there is external injury on the forehead of the body and there is fracture to the skull. Hence, it is clear that the death is a homicidal and now it has to consider as to whether the applicant can be held responsible for the injuries and to what extent. Statement of the eye witness, recorded on the very next day of the incident, reveals that the witness has seen the applicant hitting a hollow brick on the head of the deceased and the said brick is also recovered during the investigation and was sent for chemical analysis and human blood was found on the said brick. In the premise, though the investigation is over, yet there appears to be prima facie nexus between the injury on the person of the deceased and the act alleged on the part of the applicant. 8. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3635-09