( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.595 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.595 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.595 OF 2008 Hiraman Baban Sutar .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Vikas Shivarkar i/b. Mr.S.S.Thombare for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Vikas Shivarkar i/b. Mr.S.S.Thombare for the applicant and Mr.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with C.R.No.111 of 2007 under Sections 302, 201 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim by name Jijabai Vitthal Sutar, who was already married to Vitthal is said to have left the house on 30.6.2007 under the pretext that she had to have a treatment for her leg which was paining. Thereafter, she is said to have joined the present applicant and boarded S.T. and since then she was not traceable and the dead body of the said Jijabai was traced on 4.7.2007. The witnesses i.e. Malhari Sutar, F.I.R. complainant, Vitthal Sutar- the husband, Mrs.Aruna Sutar- the first wife of Vitthal have rendered the statements to show ( 2 ) that Jijabai had eloped with Hiraman- the present applicant. According to the prosecution, Malhari made inquiries at the residence of the applicant and it was reported that he was not available at his residence. 3. The applicant came to be arrested on 20.8.2007 and in the course of investigation, there is a recovery at the instance of applicant on 23.8.2007 and the panchnama as regards the ornaments of said Jijabai-the deceased. 4. With this material on record, learned Advocate Mr.Thombare presses for bail contending that the material placed before the Court through the charge-sheet is insufficient to link the present applicant with the death of Jijabai and as such the applicant is entitled to bail. It was also submitted that the ornaments alleged to have been seized under the panchnama were shown to the witnesses on 27.8.2007 and there is no material to show that the ornaments in packets were opened under the panchnama and shown to the witnesses as regards the identity of the said ornaments owned by Jijabai. Mr.Thombare submitted that the material placed before the Court is of a feeble nature and that the applicant is entitled to bail. According to Mr.Thombare, filing of the F.I.R. by Malhari on 5.7.2007 is at a belated stage and as ( 3 ) such is without any force. 5. Mr.Dedhia, learned A.P.P. opposed the bail application on the ground that two circumstances, namely; applicant found in the company of Jijabai on 30.6.2007 and recovery of ornaments and the recovery of the soiled clothes of the applicant under the Panchnama soon after the arrest, are the two circumstances pointing towards the very alleged involvement of the applicant and as such prima-facie case is made out. He submitted that the material witnesses are from the same village where the applicant was residing and, therefore, there are chances of tampering the witnesses. He, therefore, pressed for rejection of the bail application. 6. After having considered the material which is discussed above, I am inclined to observe that prima-facie case for a charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is made out against the applicant and that the recovery of the ornaments of Jijabai at the instance of the applicant is a strong circumstance against the applicant. It is true that certain ornaments were found on the person of Jijabai at the stage of inquest. However, that cannot dilute the circumstance of recovery of valuable ornaments which came to be recovered from the house of one Dnyeshwar Bhangare at ( 4 ) the instance of the applicant. The witnesses, who are from the same village where the applicant resides and that is a factor which goes against the applicant for the purposes of considering his prayer for bail as there are chances of tampering the witnesses as submitted by learned A.P.P. for the State. Even otherwise allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature, who had managed to take Jijabai away from her own residence and took the advantage of her loneliness and on account of previous enmity arranged to cause death of Jijabai. The cause of death is Asphyxia due to strangulation and the nature of injuries which are noticed in Item No.17 of the Post-mortem report. Hence, the application is required to be rejected. Hence, I pass the following order :- a) The application is rejected. b) Any observations passed in this application shall not be considered by the learned Trial Judge at the time of trial. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)