1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2010 Pruthawiraj Baliram Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra thr P.S.O. Pinjar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S. I. Jahagirdar Adv for applicant. Shri Fulzele APP for State/respondents. CORAM: A. P. BHANGALE J. Dated: 17 th FEBRUARY, 2010. Applicant is praying for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 17/09 reported at Pinjar Police Station on 05.04.2009 initially under Section 326, 427 and 504 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and later on under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. First Information Report was lodged by wife of the present applicant. According to her on 04.04.2009 on the date of incident the applicant had assaulted deceased Suman by means of stones. Injuries were caused on head, nose, mouth and mother of the first informant fell 2 unconscious but the present applicant was uncontrollable although villagers tried to intervene. He had pelted stones against them. He had also damaged autorikshaw as its glass was broken. Thus first informant who is wife of the present applicant lost her mother due to the assault by the applicant herein. Material collected to lead investigation indicates the active role of the present applicant in the incident of alleged murder. Although parents of the present applicant have been released on bail, role against present applicant was only alleged instigation or abuses given by them. Present applicant had entered into quarrel when there was attempt of settlement between the present applicant and his wife Kalpana in a matrimonial dispute. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that applicant has not used any lethal weapon and that the stones which were alledgely used had no blood stains on it. He seeks to place reliance on Alankar @ Veer Mohan Rawat & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1950 and Aminabi w/o Abed Shah & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1461 . I have perused the rulings. It must be stated that each case will have to be governed by its own facts and circumstances in order to consider plea for bail. 3 Although no lethal weapon was used by the assailant in the crime of murder, active role has been attributed to the applicant in the incident of alleged murder and further more there are eye witnesses to the incident. Their statements have recorded absence of blood stains on the stones alledgely used, may be of little consequence in the trial. However, these observations would not come in the way of learned trial Judge who will decide the case on its own merits and according to law. Considering the nature and seriousness of the accusation as also possibility of longer sentence in this case and further more the eye witnesses are close relatives as wife of the present applicant herself is first informant, there is possibility of tampering of evidence in the case. On these grounds the accused applicant cannot be released on bail, however the trial Court shall endeavour to decide the Sessions Case as early as possible. Application is rejected. JUDGE svk 4 5 6 7