1 BA 956-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.956 OF 2011 Kashinath Namdeo Popeta .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.1302 OF 2011 Kantilal Sadashiv Khutale .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.Rahul Thakur a/w. Ms.Sonia Ekbote & Ms Samata Kakade, Advocate, for the Applicant in BA.No.956 of 2011 Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP, for the Respondent  State in BA No.956 of 2011 Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b.Mr.Jayant Bardeskar, Advocate, for the Applicant in BA No.1302 of 2011 Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent  State in BA No.1302 of 2011 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2 BA 956-2011 2. These are the two applications by the persons, who have been arrested and charge sheeted in connection with C.R.No.350 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 203, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Pandharpur Police Station for commission for murder of applicant Kashinath's wife Krishna. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. It is the prosecution case that Kashinath had first wife by name Sunita. Thereafter, Kashinath married to Krishna. Krishna gave birth to a son by name Sushant. Thereafter, Kashinath decided to bring back his wife Sunita. Krishna was opposing this. Therefore, on 23rd December, 2010 the applicant Kashinath is alleged to have taken his wife and son by name Sushant at 9.00 a.m. in Santro car from their residence at Kamothe, Panvel, District Raigad. They were seen by the watchman of the building leaving in the car. The applicant Kantilal is supposed to be a 3 BA 956-2011 friend of Krishna. This friendship is not disputed. Kantilal is a contractor, who obtains labour for brick kims and therefore, has to visit areas around Daund, Pandharpur and also used to visit Tungat for getting labour. On 24th December, 2010 has reported that his wife was missing. The dead body of a female was found at Roha, District Raigad. Relation of the victim found that the description tallied with the victim and therefore, they identified the body to be that of the victim. On 24th December, 2010 a cutlivator of village Suste, Tal.Pandharpur had reported to Pandharpur Police Station about the dead body of the female aged 35 years found in a field. The panchanama was drawn up. Eventually this dead body was identified by the victim's relation as the dead body of Krishna. Now, this would show that the victim's relation had first identified wrong dead body and then they identified the dead body found at village 4 BA 956-2011 Suste, Tal.Pandharpur to be that of victim. The police do not seem to have taken any sample from the dead body for DNA finger printing. The police rely on evidence of calls made and on the mobile phone of Kashinath. Curiously there was a call on 16.40 hours on 23rd December, 2010 from Kashinath's mobile phone to Kantilal's mobile phone. Now if they were travelling together in Santro car, it is difficult to believe that the two applicants would talk to each other on mobile phone, when Kashinath's mobile phone was located at Yavat, Tal.Daund, Dist.Pune. The learned Counsel for the applicants state that since the applicants are friends, there is nothing wrong or unusual about their calling each other. Except for this evidence of calls and one statement of watchman, who states that at 9:00 a.m. on 23rd December, 2010 he saw the victim, Kashinath and their son Sushant in Santro car, nothing else has been collected by the police. Considering the 5 BA 956-2011 nature of evidence collected, since investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, both the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.50,000/- till the trial is over. 3. Bail Applications stand disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)