1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3427 OF 2009 Shahanur S/o.Janemiya Shaikh APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent/State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.111/2009, registered in Ausa Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 201 r/w.34 of The IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for respondent State. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is tried to urge that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence, and there is no direct evidence which connect the present applicant with the murder of one Babalu alias Shafiyoddin r/o. Udgir. As according to 2 the complainant, his son Babalu has left his house alongwith the present applicant and one Dadamiya under the pretext that they have to go to Nanded and they went to Nanded in auto rickshaw and thereafter son of the complainant never returned back, and when the inquiry was made, they were unable to explain the whereabouts of Babalu @ Shafiyoddin. 4. As the notice of this application is already issued to the respondent State, papers of investigation till carried out are placed in my hand. It is a fact that the investigation in this case is in progress, and the charge sheet is yet to be filed, even though the present applicant is in custody since last 87 days. 5. Report of post mortem find place alongwith the papers of investigation which completely discloses that the death of the deceased is un-natural death. From the nature of injuries which found on the person of the deceased, it is to be inferred that this death is a homicidal death. 6. Initially the accidental death is reported in Ausa Police Station and on that basis, vide ADR No.45/2009 about the unidentified dead body found in the field of Ausa, which was later on identified by the complainant as the dead body of his son. 7. During the investigation, statement of one Shaikh Riyaz was recorded. He is the owner of auto rickshaw in which the deceased 3 and complainant travelled when deceased left his residence. The fact discloses in the statement of this Shaikh Riyaz indicates that the applicant and the deceased alongwith one Dadamiya have travelled to Nanded through his auto rikshaw and on their way, the auto met with an accident. Thereafter when he alighted from his auto, he came to know that Bablu was no more. Hence his dead body was thrown in the field of Ausa. At least, at this juncture this is the statement of owner of auto rickshaw driver with whom there is disclosure on the part of the applicant of the place where the body of the deceased was thrown from where it was recovered and on that basis ADR was recorded. The fact remains that considering the postmortem report, as it is already stated, it is to be inferred that the death of the deceased is homicidal death and the disclosure by the owner of the auto rickshaw established the nexus between the role of present applicant and the place from where the dead body is recovered. In the premise, application sans any merit and liable to be rejected. The application stands rejected accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3427-09