1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2408 OF 2006 Ukanda Somala Pawar versus State of Maharashtra Mr. Sangram Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Mirza, A. P.P. For state. CORAM: S. R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE: 25.9.2006 1. Heard Mr. Sangram Sirpurkar, advocate for applicant and Mr. Mirza, A.P.P. for the respondent – State. 2. The accused is now charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. of Police Station Sakharkheda, on the ground that some time on 11.5.2006 the accused along with one deceased Raisinghfula committed murder of deceased Ramesh Rathod, co-brother of the applicant-accused. 3. The facts emerging out of the record are that, since 11.5.2006 deceased Ramesh was missing. Later on, he was found to be dead on 22nd May, 2006. During investigation, the statements of Gulab Chouhan, Bansi Rathod and Bajirao 2 Sanap were recorded on 4.6.2006 and Investigating Officer found that the deceased was beaten by the deceased Raisinghfula and the accused. It is alleged that the place of incident was discovered by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 4. Despite specific query, the learned APP for the State is unable to point out the cause of death of deceased. In fact the post mortem notes which are filed along with the charge- sheet shows that the cause of death cannot be ascertained as the body was totally decomposed. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the cause of death of the deceased is not homicidal to certainty. Therefore, ex-facie the case against the accused does not appear to be under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Mere fact that Raisinghfula has committed suicide thereafter would not be sufficient to refuse bail. Hence the accused is entitled for bail. 5. Accused be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the lower Court, subject to condition that he shall not directly or indirectly tampering with the prosecution evidence. 6. It is made clear that the above observations are on prima facie view of the matter, which shall not bind the trial Court while deciding the matter on merits in any way. Bail in lower Court. Application disposed of. 3 hamdast allowed. JUDGE Rvjalit