1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 512 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2011. Pradip Bapurao Awasarmol .vs. The State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Pankaj Navlani, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, A.P.P. for respondent. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 12, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent. The applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Sachin. The applicant is now seeking bail. There is no eye-witness in the present case and the case is only dependent on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are recovery of sickle at the instance of the applicant. PW.7 Dhanraj and PW.8 Narayan are the panch witnesses in relation to the recovery of sickle at the instance of the applicant. Both 2 these witnesses have not supported the prosecution. On perusal of the evidence of the Investigating Officer in relation to the seizure of sickle, we find that he has not stated anything about sealing of the said sickle. In this view of the matter, we are prima facie of the opinion that much importance cannot be given to the circumstance of recovery of sickle at the instance of the applicant. Thereafter, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the accused was absconding. It is noticed that the incident took place on 15.8.2009 and the accused was arrested by the police on 16.8.2009. The applicant was arrested the very next day. Thus, this fact cannot be of much consequence. The learned A.P.P. further pointed out that the applicant had an injury on the thumb of the left hand which according to the Doctor was possible by sickle. The said injury is a minor injury. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant has furnished an explanation for the said injury. Thus, in the facts of this case, it cannot be said to be such an incriminating circumstance so as to connect the applicant with the murder of Sachin. Thereafter, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the Dog Tracking Squad was called and the dog went to the house of the accused. In our prima facie opinion, this also cannot be a conclusive circumstance because it has not 3 come on record that the accused was the only person residing in the house. No other circumstance has been brought to our notice. Looking to the evidence on record, we are inclined to grant bail to the accused. Hence, the following order :- 1) The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant is suspended. 2) The applicant be released on bail on executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and on furnishing one or two sureties to make up the said amount. 3) Before being released on bail, the concerned Police Station shall be informed the address at which the applicant shall reside during the period he is on bail. 4) The applicant will report to Shirajgaon Police Station once a fortnight till disposal of the appeal. The application is allowed in above terms. JUDGE. JUDGE. J.