1appln-2644-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2644/2010 Sitaram Sadhuram Shahu vs. The State. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr A.A.Pande, advocate for the Applicant. Mrs A.S.Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 7TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this regular bail application preferred by the applicant-accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. 2appln-2644-10 2. Admittedly, the entire case against the accused is based on circumstantial evidence, i.e., at the most two circumstances; first circumstance that one witness by name Vasu Shrinivasan Koneri giving statement to the police after two days as to seeing the accused watchman Sitaram at his workplace in the compound of the building at 2:00 a.m.on the early hours of 6th December,2009. The second circumstance is regarding alleged recovery of shirt and pant at the instance of the accused recovered again on 8th December, i.e.after two days after the arrest of the accused. During such recovery allegedly shirt was found having blood stains at four places, one below the neck collar of the area of 1 cm, second one near right hand cuff of the area of 1 cm and third one near the button strip and fourth one on the left hand cuff of the size 1.5 cm. Admittedly, these are the only two circumstances, without there being any alleged motive for killing of the victim. 3. On the above background of alleged case of the prosecution, allegations against the accused are that on the night between 5th and 6th December, 2009 he assaulted the victim, his own brother-in-law, (wife’s brother)by means of a stone weighing about 15 to 20 kilograms. When the deceased was assaulted while he was on watchman duty in the nearby building where the applicant was also the watchman of another building. Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the said incident. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that, the deceased was in the habit of having talks with one maid servant in the nearby building and the accused admonished him not to indulge in such activity. But the deceased was not accepting such advise and as such being enraged the applicant killed the deceased on the fateful night. 4. After going through the statement of the said woman allegedly with 3appln-2644-10 whom the deceased was in habit of talk it appears that she did not support the case of the prosecution as to the deceased having any illegitimate advances towards her. On the contrary, she speak of high regards concerning the said deceased watchman. 5. Apart from the above, so far as the blood stained shirt allegedly recovered at the instance of the applicant-accused is concerned, the C.A.,report discloses that blood found on the shirt of the accused is of “B” group, so also blood of the deceased and also that of the applicant accused is of “B” group. Significantly enough, in the C.A.,report there is no specific mention as to whether the blood of the applicant accused is of “B +” or “B-” It appears that the Investigating Officer must not have given much heed to such type of evidence. All the same, in the opinion of this Court, here considering the case against the accused based on the circumstantial evidence and that also the effect of only two circumstances as detailed above, the present applicant can be released on bail on certain conditions as to attendance to concerned police station during the trial and conclusion of the matter. Hence, the following order: (a) Bail Application No.2644/2010 is allowed. Applicant- accused Sitaram Sadhuram Shahu shall be released on bail on executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-with one surety in the like amount or two sureties for Rs.10,000/-each. (b) At this stage, request for cash security is rejected. (c) On availing the bail, the applicant shall attend Sakinaka 4appln-2644-10 Police Station twice a week from 10-00 a.m. to 12-00 noon on every Monday and Thursday till final disposal of the case. (d) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merit of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J) 5appln-2644-10