1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1071 OF 2010 Dilip @ Chhotu Sitaram Landge ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Mrs.S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mrs.Vaishali Shinde, APP for respondent. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 27th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mrs.S.S. Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant and Mrs.Vaishali Shinde, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.39/2010 registered with Shirpur police station, Dist.Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, since he was arrested thereunder on 3rd February, 2010 and he is under judicial custody presently. 2 3. It appears that offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by complainant namely Kashinath Nimba Pardeshi, P.S.I. Shirpur police station, Dist.Dhule on 3rd February, 2010 in respect of alleged murder of victim namely Surekha. 4. Applicant herein is brother-in-law of deceased Surekha and marriage between victim Surekha and Krishna i.e. brother of applicant herein took place about 3 years prior to occurrence of incident i.e. prior to 3rd February, 2010. Victim was blessed with male child. Hence, it is apparent that death of deceased Surekha occurred within a period of 7 years from date of her marriage. 5. Admittedly, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and case of the prosecution is rested upon circumstantial evidence since the death of victim Surekha occurred during intervening night between 2nd and 3rd February, 2010. The statements of witnesses namely Ramsing Rajput, Divansing Rajput and Arjun Dangar disclose that victim 3 Surekha and her husband used to sleep in a room situated in house no.288 during night which was used for storing agricultural implements. It is the contention of the applicant that other family members used to reside in adjacent house no.246/2. According to Postmortem notes the death of victim occurred within a period of six hours after last meal, and therefore, it is apparent that the death of victim occurred at about midnight intervening night between 2nd and 3rd February, 2010. Consequently, it is apparent that it is the custodial death, and therefore, the finger can be very well raised against husband namely Krushna as perpetrator of the crime. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is brother-in-law of the victim who was residing in house no.246/2, and therefore, it is urged that applicant can not be held guilty for the alleged homicidal death of victim Surekha. 6. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that the statements of parents of the victim Surekha also do not raise finger against applicant herein as culprit and there are no allegations of any ill- 4 treatment to victim Surekha in the said statements. Hence, learned counsel for applicant submitted that since the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody furthermore, and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that murder of victim Surekha was pre-planned murder and spot panchanama discloses that the cot on which the victim and her husband were sleeping, was bent. Moreover, applicant has sustained injury on his right shoulder and the said injury sustained by applicant creates suspicion that scuffle might have taken place at the time of strangulating victim by the applicant and other co-accused. Learned A.P.P. also submitted that Postmortem notes disclose multiple injuries sustained by victim which are antemortem injuries, and therefore, it is canvassed that it is apparent that victim resisted before strangulating her. It is also canvased that the statements of witnesses namely Komalsingh Rajput and Himmatsingh Rajup disclose that 5 applicant and other co-accused persons used to suspect fidelity of the victim Surekha, and therefore, she was subjected to ill-treatment, which ultimately led to her murder. Accordingly learned A.P.P. submitted that present application bears no substance and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed. Learned A.P.P. also posed apprehension that if applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering of prosecution evidence and/or causing influence upon the prosecution witnesses at the hands of applicant. 8. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respective parties, there is no dispute that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, more particularly on 26th April, 2010. Admittedly, prosecution case is rested upon the circumstantial evidence and according to postmortem notes the death of victim occurred within six hours from last meal, and therefore, the death of victim could have taken place in the midnight between 2nd and 3rd February, 2010. Apparently, it is a custodial death. The statements of witnesses namely Ramsingh 6 Rajuput, Deevansingh Rajput and Arjun Dhangar disclose that victim and her husband used to sleep in a room, house no.288. It is contention of learned counsel for applicant that applicant was residing in a adjacent house bearing no.246, and therefore, apparently applicant who is brother-in-law of victim can not construed as perpetrator to the crime, whereas victim's husband Krushna can apparently be construed as culprit of said crime. Besides that, the statements of parents of victim do not disclose any ill-treatment at the hands of applicant and other co-accused persons. 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to accept the submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant and applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. As regards the apprehension posed by learned A.P.P. that if applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering of prosecution evidence and/or causing influence upon the prosecution witnesses, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicants shall not enter into 7 village Jatode, Taluka Shirpur, Dist.Dhule till the completion of trial and accordingly the said apprehension can be met with by imposing conditions to that effect upon applicant while releasing him on bail. 10. In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that applicant be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.39/2010 registered with Shirpur police station, Dist.Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and on executing the P.R. bond in the like amount, on the following conditions: (a) Applicant, after his release on bail, shall not enter into village Jatode, Tq.Shripur, Dist.Dhule till the disposal of trial. (b) Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and/or shall not influence upon the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cra1071.10