1 BA 660-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.660 OF 2011 Dharmendra alias Vijay Shankar .Applicant Sharma V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. Mr.Subhash Hulyalkar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for bail by a husband, who is arrested in connection with C.R.No.260 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Hinjwadi Police Station, Pune and who is alleged to have killed his wife. His previous 2 BA 660-2011 bail application came to be withdrawn on 7th December, 2010 on being indicated that it would not be granted and thereafter, by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune on 28th February, 2011. Charge sheet was filed on 2nd December, 2009. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is a doubt about the identity of the dead body, since the dead body was found in a gunny bag in a highly decomposed state. The prosecution has sought to collect samples for DNA finger and had sent the other samples to the laboratory and that the report was not available when the previous application was withdrawn. The report from the laboratory dated 20th July, 2010 which is made available for my perusal by the learned APP shows that DNA profile could not be obtained from contents of Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 and Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 were control blood samples. Therefore, their DNA profiling could 3 BA 660-2011 not be done as no other profile was available for comparison. The learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that except for the allegation that the applicant's wife has disappeared, there is nothing to show that the applicant has, in fact, murdered his wife or the dead body which is recovered from the gunny bag was of applicant's wife. The missing complaint given by the applicant himself shows that his wife was wearing Yellow saree, Black blouse and and a marriage necklace. The dead body was found with Yellow saree, Black blouse and two bangles of Yellow metal in each of the two hands. Therefore, the police thought that this body was that of applicant's wife. The learned APP points out that neighbours had identified the clothes and ornaments to be of the victim. Considering the nature of evidence collected against the applicant that namely i) he has another wife; ii) there used to be disputes between the two wives; iii) the victim was missing and missing 4 BA 660-2011 complaint was given by applicant; iv) a decomposed dead body was found in Pauna river; v) clothes/ornaments on the dead body were like those worn by deceased; vi) laboratory reports are, however, unable to connect applicant to crime, is not of such a type as could be tampered with. The trial is not yet taking off though applicant is in custody for two years. Therefore, considering the nature of evidence collected, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.50,000/-. 4. Criminal Application stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)