ba-538-11.sxw 1 A.Patil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 538 OF 2011 Shantaram Kishan Bhujbal ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 14 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the FIR and the copy of the Charge-sheet that is annexed to the Bail Application. The applicant is alleged to have murdered his own wife. Apart from the applicant, applicant’s son and wife of the son are also accused in this case. They have, however, been released on bail. 3. The FIR, which has been lodged by one Murlidhar - brother of the deceased Sangeeta - shows that the marriage between the applicant and Sangeeta took place in the year 1983. As per the version in the F.I.R., since two years after the marriage, the applicant had been continuously ill-treating the said Sangeeta. On 14th September 2010, Sangeeta was found to be dead in the field of the applicant. Her death was believed to be unnatural having been caused either by throttling, or making her to consume some poison, or by both these means. 4. Except the bare words of the First Informant, there is nothing to show that the applicant committed murder of his own wife. There is no material in the charge-sheet ba-538-11.sxw 2 A.Patil showing that the applicant had gone to place where the dead body of Sangeeta was found. Sangeeta was seen going to that place alone by a person-one Nanda-whose statement has been recorded. In the course of Investigation, no information could be received from anyone showing that the applicant had gone at the spot where the murder allegedly took place, or that he had been seen by anyone while going there, or coming back from there. The allegation that he had been ill-treating his wife for a period of 26 years, cannot lead to the conclusion that on one fine day he murdered his wife. There also appears to be some doubt as to whether any poison was consumed by said Sangeeta. 5. Considering the nature of the material on the basis of which the applicant has been involved, I am inclined to release him on bail, particularly because he is in custody since 15th September 2010, and that trial has not been commenced, and the co-accused has been released on bail. 6. The Bail Application is allowed. 7. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.40,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]