( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3519 OF 2010 Madhukar Dodha Nerkar & another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS .... Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicants. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondents/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for regular bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicants are arrested for offence punishable under section 143, 147, 149, 365, 368, 323, 504, 506 and 302 of the I.P. Code, vide crime No. 199/2010, registered at Dhule Taluka Police Station. 3. The deceased, namely, Prabhakar Nerkar, was residing in the neighbourhood of the applicants. On 30th ( 2 ) May, 2010, at about 8.30 p.m., there took place a quarrel between deceased Prabhakar and the applicants on account of throwing torchlight on his face. That quarrel was, however, settled due to intervention of the neighbours. The FIR lodged by wife of deceased Prabhakar, shows that in the night time at about 2 p.m., the applicants No. 1 and 2 visited her house, woke up her husband Prabhakar and told him that they shall settle the dispute. He was taken away by them. He had put on only an under-pant while leaving the house. He did not return home. In the next morning, his wife approached the applicants and asked them the whereabouts of her husband. Both of them gave evasive answers to her queries. She, therefore, lodged a report with the Police Station that her husband was kidnapped by the applicants and their family members. On 1st June, 2010, at about 6 a.m., dead-body of her husband was found floating in a well, situated within the precincts of village Lonkhede. Thereafter, wife of deceased Prabhakar lodged FIR about her suspicion that the applicants and others had kidnapped her husband in the relevant wee hours in the relevant morning and caused his death. 4. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers. The ( 3 ) chargesheet has been already filed after due investigation. 5. There is no direct evidence about complicity of the applicants in relation to the cause of the death of deceased Prabhakar. It appears from the post-mortem notes that he died of drowning in the well. There is no eye witness account to show that the applicants had taken him towards the well in the relevant late-night under the pretext of settling the dispute. The only evidence appearing against the applicants is regarding the fact that deceased Prabhakar was in their company in that night and had gone with them from his house. 6. It is explicit that there was no serious reason for the quarrel between the applicants and deceased Prabhakar in the relevant evening. Nor anyone was injured during course of that quarrel which had ensued because a torchlight had fallen on face of deceased Prabhakar. The reason was so trivial that ordinarily, it could not have given rise to strong motive for eliminating Prabhakar. Another important aspect to be noticed is that the applicants were not armed with any weapon when deceased Prabhakar left with them in the late hours. The death of Prabhakar was noticed after about ( 4 ) 48 hours. The death was due to drowning in the well and not as a result of any assault or act of violence as such. Considering absence of any serious motive, absence of use of any weapon and the nature of allegations, it will have to be said that the entire edifice of the prosecution case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence, namely that deceased Prabhakar was taken away by the applicants from his house in the dead hours of the night under the assurance of settling the dispute which had occurred earlier. The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions and they will not enter the limits of village Lonkhede till completion of the trial. 7. Having regard to the foregoing reasons and discussion, the application is allowed. Both the applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), each, with one solvent surety bond in the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions and on condition that while furnishing bail bonds, simultaneously, they shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that they will not enter the limits of village Lonkhede until the trial of the Sessions Case is ( 5 ) over and shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not make an endeavour to tamper with the evidence of prosecution. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3519-10