1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1237 OF 2009 Sitaram @ Biti Tulsiram Patil .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 19th June, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-119 of 2009 of Kalyan Taluka Police Station. The crime has been registered against the applicant and three others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 201 of IPC. 3. The applicant and three others have allegedly committed murder of Somaridevi and her son Chotu Kanojiya on 5.9.2008 at midnight. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are motive, recovery of clothes of the accused, and statement of Balaram Kamble, who claims that he had seen the present applicant near the scene of offence at 2.00-3.00 am. Apart from these 2 circumstance there is no other material on record to connect the applicant with the alleged incident. I have perused the statement of Balaram Kamble. He has stated that when he woke up at 2.00-3.00 am for answering nature’s call he saw one Innova car near his home. Headlights of the car were on and its bonnet was open. He saw one person aged 25-30 years near the car doing something. Over and above this he has not stated anything more. His statement was recorded on 8.9.2008. On 19.10.2008 he identified the applicant as the same person to whom he had seen on 5.9.2008. In the supplementary statement he has given number of the car without offering any explanation as to why he did not give number of the car when his statement was recorded on 8.9.2008. The second circumstance is the recovery of clothes, but there are no blood stains on the clothes. The alleged motive, according to the prosecution, is that one Manoj, the son of Somaridevi and the sister of the applicant had an affair which the applicant did not like it. The deceased – Chotu Kanojiya is another son of the deceased – Somaridevi. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that if the applicant really did not like the affair between Manoj and his sister, he would have killed Manoj and not Somaridevi and her another son – Chotu Kanojiya. He submitted that the motive is weak and not sufficient to connect the applicant with the incident of murder. 3 He then submitted that the statement of Balaram Kamble alone is not sufficient to connect the applicant with the alleged incident. At this stage Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P. invited my attention to one more circumstance. He submitted that there is material on record to show that all the accused had conversation on their mobile phones at the relevant time. This circumstance according to Mr.Suryawanshi would not help the prosecution in view of the fact that the applicant did not have any mobile phone of his own. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that continued detention of the applicant is not necessary. Hence the following order:- Applicant to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the condition the applicant is directed to report to the concerned police station on every alternate Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm till conclusion of the trial. While passing this order 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. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)