1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1764 OF 2011 Md. Shiraj Shaikh Md. Phase .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. H.E. Mooman for applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 28th November, 2011 P.C. 1. The applicant is arrested in C.R. No.448 of 2010 for committing murder of his wife by assaulting her with bamboo. The reason for the murder and assault was extra marital affairs of the wife. The statements of brother, mother and the sister of the applicant show that the applicant had assaulted his wife. The inquest panchanama and the post mortem report 2 show multiple injuries on the body of the wife, caused by bamboo stick. There are injuries on the private part of the deceased also. The Police found chilly powder on the private part and the anus of the deceased. This indicate brutal torture of the deceased. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no eye witness to the incident of assault. Therefore, there is no direct evidence of the applicant being connected to the crime. He also submits that the possibility of the paramour of the deceased assaulting her cannot be ruled out. 3. Even if there is no eye witness, the statements of brother, mother and sister of the applicant are sufficient to indicate involvement of the applicant in the offence. The nature of injuries on the deceased shows that the deceased was tortured and assaulted. The murder is seen to be a brutal murder. Since all the witnesses are the relatives of the applicant, the possibility of the applicant trying to influence them in some 3 way or the other cannot be ruled out. As regards the argument of paramour of the deceased being the perpetrator of the crime, there is no material whatsoever to even remotely indicate the same. Hence, the application is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)