1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4068 OF 2009 Shailesh S/o.Chandrakant Nalawade, Age-19 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Maligalli, Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 15/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.102/09, registered in Shivajinagar Police Station for the alleged offence u/s. 302 of IPC. 2. It is informed that now the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed in the present case. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with this crime on 15/06/2009, and since then he is in custody. 2 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation. From the papers of investigation, it revealed that the said CR was registered on 15/06/2009 on the complaint of Mrs.Shilpa Bhagat about the assault on the head of her husband. Papers of investigation particularly post mortem notes shows that death caused due to multiple injuries of skull bone and head injury, viscera preserved. CA report also discloses that the alcohol was found in the viscera sent for test which was collected from the abdomen of deceased while conducting the post mortem. It is urged across the bar that now the investigation is over. All the witnesses were the family members in the family of deceased as well as the applicant as well as the applicant is son of the deceased. Even though there are eye witnesses, there is no chances of tampering of evidence and considering the facts as stated in the complaint, the act allegedly committed by the applicant to be inferred as the assault in sudden provocation because of the abuse on the part of deceased. 4. Learned APP opposed the bail application on the ground that there are witnesses who have witnessed that the applicant has assaulted on the head of the injured which resulted in the death of deceased. In the premise, as the blow given by the applicant resulted into death of deceased there is direct nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased and the present applicant, who had given a blow on the head of deceased, hence application be refused. 3 5. Considering these submissions across the bar, before the alleged incident occurred, there was alteration of words and abuse on the part of deceased, which is reflected from the complaint as well as the statements recorded of the eye witnesses during the investigation, and if it is so, at this juncture, the prosecution have brought on record the act of the applicant is due to the provocation because of the act of deceased, his own father. Considering these aspects and the age of applicant is 19 years at the time of alleged incidence, and since the month of June 2009, immediately on the next day after the alleged incident occurred, the applicant is in jail, case is made out to enlarge the applicant accused on bail,hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to tamper with the witnesses of the prosecution. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.4068-09