{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3896 OF 2009 1. Sakharam @ Avinash s/o Kaduba Admane Age-30 years, Occ-Business R/o Satara (Khandoba), Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 2. Sanjay s/o Kaduba Admane Age-35 years, Occ-Service R/o Satara Parisar, Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 7th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.36/2009 registered with Osmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad for an offence punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In the present case, now the investigation is over and not only the charge sheet is filed but also the case is committed to the court of Sessions, Aurangabad and numbered as Sessions {2} Case No.196/2009. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. 4. It is not disputed that the alleged incident took place somewhere in the evening of 14.02.2009 of which complaint was lodged on 15.02.2009 and on that basis CR No.36/2009 came to be registered against the present applicants and others. Applicants came to be arrested on 15.02.2009 in connection with the said offence and since then they are in jail. 5. It appears that the medical officer, who has conducted postmortem on the dead body of victim, which was taken from the pyre in partially burnt condition, opined that the probable cause of death is due to asphyxia. The Medical Officer has also found ligature marks on the neck. It can be said that the death of the victim is an unnatural death, however whether the same is homicidal or suicidal can be decided during the course of trial. 6. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned APP took me through the complaint as well as through the papers of investigation. It is to be noted that the dead body of the victim was seen by her father, complainant in CR No.36/2009, however at that time there was no doubt in his mind. It appears that there was some dispute, as the {3} deceased had suspected that son of applicant No.1 had stolen her gold neck less. Over the said incident, it is alleged, there was dispute between the deceased, applicant No.2 and wife of applicant No.2. It is to be noted that the deceased was carrying 5 months pregency at the time of her death. The Panchanama of the spot, drawn immediately after the incident, requires to be considered. There are marks of damage on the door of the room, where the dead body was found in hanging condition and the latch is found in broken condition. This itself indicates that at the time of alleged incident, the victim must have been alone inside the room. In the premise, if the victim was alone inside the room, at least, prima facie, it cannot be inferred that it is a case covered u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the premise, as both the applicants are in custody since February 2009, the investigation is over and that the charge sheet is filed, then a case is made out to release both the applicants on bail, however, by imposing certain conditions. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. Both the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicants shall not contact the parents or relatives of the deceased till the trial in Sessions Case No.196/2009 is over. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3896-09