{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2454 OF 2010 Laxman s/o Dattu Kandekar Age-34 years, Occ-Driver R/o Pargaon, Tq-Shrigonda, Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer Shrigonda police station, Dist-Ahmednagar RESPONDENT ....... Mr. N.V.Gaware, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.95/2010 registered with Shrigonda police station, Dist-Ahmednagar for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as the {2} applicant is arrested on 25th March 2010 and since then he is in jail. It is informed that in the present offence, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 7th June 2010 before JMFC, Shrigonda. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, as now the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and co-accused Dada Hirve, who is directed to be released on bail by this Court. 3. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to peruse the postmortem notes in respect of deceased Popat Khamkar. The Postmortem was conducted on 23.03.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. Total 9 external injuries were noticed on the person of the deceased with connecting internal injuries found on the skull. Ribs and most part of the chest was found fractured. The cause of death given by the medical officer is "due to neurogenic shock due to head injuries". Considering the nature of injuries and the way and manner in which the death is caused, it can {3} safely be inferred that the death is unnatural one, which can be caused by machine. 4. Admittedly, present applicant and co-accused Dada Hirve are having tractors, which were engaged by the deceased to work in his agricultural land. From the papers of investigation it appears that in the night between 22nd and 23rd March 2010, the deceased so also the accused were present in the field. It appears that there was quarrel between the applicant and the deceased over the quantity of soil brought by the applicant in his tractor to the field of the deceased. The complaint of the incident of death came to be lodged by one Raju, nephew of the deceased. Admittedly, complainant is not an eye witness to the incident. It is alleged that the complainant received the information that the deceased was lying in injured condition, from one Navnath. Even the statement of the said Navnath, recorded during the investigation, indicate that he has not personally witnessed the incident however he received the information from one Sambhaji, owner of the JCB. Perusal of statement of the said Sambhaji, recorded during the investigation does not disclose that he has {4} witnessed the incident. This witness Sambhaji claims that he had received a message from one Neminath. Perusal of the statement of Neminath recorded during the investigation discloses that present applicant and the co-accused had informed him that they had seen the deceased lying in injured condition and in turn he had informed the same to others. Thus, from the entire papers of investigation so also perusal of the statements of all the witnesses, recorded during the investigation, it appears that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The only incriminating evidence against the present applicant is that some quarrel had taken place between him and the deceased in the said night. Other than this incriminating circumstance, nothing incriminating has been recorded or nothing incriminating is recovered at the instance of the applicant. In the premise, and considering the fact that the investigation is over there are no chances of interfering with the investigation, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 5. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail in connection with CR No.95/2010 registered {5} with Shrigonda police station, on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. The applicant is directed not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2454-10