{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2359 OF 2010 Gangabai Sham Thavre Age-21 years, Occ-Housewife R/o Anandgaon, Tq-Majalgaon Dist-Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the P.I. Majalgaon Police Station, RESPONDENT ....... Mr. S.G.Dodya, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 15th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to release her on bail in connection with CR No.25/2010 registered with Dindrud police station for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the applicant is in jail since 24.05.2010. 2. It is informed that in this offence, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 26.06.2010. {2} 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 4. It appears that brother in law of the applicant was found in injured condition outside his house, near the house of the applicant at about 2.00 a.m. on 29.03.2010. It also appears that in the fateful night, when the applicant and her husband heard shouts of the wife of the deceased, they came out of their house and saw the dead body of the brother in law of the applicant in a pool of blood as his throat was found cut with sharp cutting instrument. It further appears that thereafter husband of the present applicant reported the said incident to the Dindrud police station at 4.30 a.m. The PM report of the deceased indicate that the death is caused due to cut injury on the throat of the deceased. Thus, it is clear that the death is a homicidal. It appears that later on the applicant and her husband came to be arrested after about two months of the incident, as the wife of the deceased has suspected about their involvement in the murder of the deceased. It is alleged that one month prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between the applicant and her husband on one side and the deceased on the other. During the said quarrel, the applicant had slapped the deceased and had threatened of dire consequences. According to learned APP this is an incriminating evidence against the applicant. {3} 5. Considering the papers of investigation, it is clear that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstances. So far as circumstances, which point out guilt of the applicant is the statement of the co-accused as well as statement of the applicant herself, recorded during the investigation. Confessional statement recorded by the police are inadmissible evidence in law. Apart from this, according to learned APP the weapon of assault is recovered at the instance of the husband of the applicant. In law this evidence or circumstance cannot be used against the applicant. Other than these circumstances of previous quarrel, confession before police and recovery of weapon at the hands of co-accused, no incriminating circumstance is brought on record to link the applicant with the said offence. Considering the circumstances which are brought on record alleging that the applicant is involved in this crime, this Court is not satisfied, prima facie, that they are sufficient to hold the applicant guilty at least at this stage. In the premise, and considering the fact that the applicant is a lady having a sucking child and another small daughter, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail in connection with CR No.25/2010 registered with Dindrud police station, on her furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. Application stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that the above observations are prima facie observations based on the {4} papers of investigation, which are brought to the notice of this Court and the trial court need not be influenced by the same while conducting the trial. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2359-10