1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1152 OF 2010 Sunita w/o Babasaheb Shendade ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the applicant Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 12th April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.1/2010, registered with Beed (Rural) Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code since the applicant was arrested therein on 4.1.2010 and is in judicial custody presently. 2 3. It appears that, the offence came to be registered on the complaint lodged by complainant namely Raosaheb Dadabhau Shedade, i.e. the brother of the deceased Babasaheb on 4.1.2010, alleging that his brother, deceased Babasaheb, was disappeared since 7.7.2009 and his dead body was found in a well in the field of one Sudhakar Mane on 2.1.2010. It is also alleged in the said complaint that the applicant, who is the wife of deceased Babasaheb, had illicit relations with co-accused Bapurao and, therefore, the applicant and co-accused Bapurao and other co- accused, in collusion with each other, eliminated deceased Babasaheb, since he was obstruction in their illicit relations. 4. It is also apparent that, before lodging the said offence, earlier two complaints were lodged, one by applicant herein and one by Raosaheb, i.e. the complainant herein, about missing of Babasaheb since 7.7.2009. Those complaints were private complaints lodged in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. Admittedly, the co-accused Iqbal Ahmed has been already granted bail by this Court as well as another co-accused Bapurao was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 26.2.2010. 3 6. Besides that, particularly there is allegation that deceased met the death by strangulation and the post mortem notes disclose that the opinion about the cause of death is reserved and viscera preserved for analysis. However, the learned A.P.P. submitted that he has not received any instructions regarding the C.A. report of the said viscera so far. 7. The prosecution relied upon the Pahani Panchanama dated 7.1.2010 and submitted that, the applicant made disclosure statement therein and applicant can be connected with the alleged crime accordingly. However, needless to say, the confessional contents of the said disclosure statement are inadmissible. Apart from that, apparently, there is no incriminating, cogent and convincing evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. 8. In the result, present application deserves to be allowed and same is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.1/2010, registered with Beed (Rural) Police Station, District Beed on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount, on condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly/ indirectly. 4 9. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri1152.10