1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 568 OF 2011 ( GNYANIRAM PUNAU LILHARE...VS..STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO RAVANWADI.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.B.Gaikwad. Advocate for Applicant. Mr. D.M.Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 09, 2011. The applicant has moved this application for releasing him on bail, against whom the offence bearing Crime No.45 of 2011 under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered with the Police Station, Ravanwadi, District : Gondia. On 02.04.2011 Gowardhan Biranwar, aged 55 years (since deceased), resident of village Mogri within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Ravanwadi had gone to graze his cattle. He did not return and hence on the next day his son Kailash lodged a missing report. On 04.04.2011 when Kailash had gone to graze the cattle he saw the applicant/ accused and Hasanlal carrying some heavy article in a gunny bag. They concealed it under the leaves of mango tree and left the place. Out of curiosity Kailash went there and to his surprise, it was the dead body of his father. He, therefore, lodged report in the police station. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. There is an evidence to show that three months prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the deceased and the present applicant/ accused. In 2 that, the applicant/ accused had threatened the deceased. The quarrel was on account of the right of passage through their fields. Again 4-5 days prior to the incident the applicant/ accused quarreled with the deceased. Other circumstance is the deceased and the applicant/ accused were seen hurling abuses at each other on 02.04.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. This is spelt out from the statement of one Shivcharan. Other circumstance is recovery of bamboo stick from the possession of the applicant/ accused on 06.04.2011. According the medical officer injuries on the person of the deceased were possible by such bamboo stick. The injury on the right knee of the applicant/ accused was also noticed. Considering the circumstances appearing against the applicant/ accused, his prima-facie involvement under the offence is made out. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting his bail application. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the co-accused, by name Hasanlal, has been released by this Court on 14.09.2011. While granting bail to the co- accused this Court observed that : “However, the reply reveals that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The alleged weapon of assault namely stick has been recovered at the instance of alleged accused Ghyaniram and his clothes have also been recovered. The evidence of previous enmity as is revealed from the statement of Jaggusingh Suryawanshi is only between the deceased and accused no.1. No doubt the applicant and the said accused no.1 are cousin brothers. The only evidence which is against the present applicant could be of carrying the dead body of the deceased, along with Ghyaniram and dumping in the field and covering it with grass etc.” 3 It is obvious that against the co-accused Hasanlal the only circumstance was of concealing the dead body after two days of the incident. Therefore, the ground of parity is not available to the present applicant/ accused. The application is rejected. JUDGE RR..