{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4205 OF 2009 Sainath @ Mahesh @ Manesh s/o Sahebrao Dhotre Age-24 years, Occ-Agri R/o Dahinwandi, Tq-Shirur (K) Dist-Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police station Shirur (Kasar), Dist-Beed RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 13th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.73/2009 registered with Shirur (Kasar) police station for an offence punishable u/s 306, 304-B, 498-A 323 r/w 34 of the IPC, as now the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed in the Court of JMFC, Shirur (Kasar) on 13.11.2009 and since 01.09.2009 {2} the applicant is in jail. 2. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Sorjabai Mane alleging that the victim- Ambika, daughter of the complainant, committed suicide in the afternoon of 31st August 2009 as the mother of the victim could not satisfy the demand of Rs.40,000/- of the applicant and his relatives for purchase of new motorcycle. It is further alleged that on the day of the incident, the complainant had been to her daughter’s house and when she had shown her unableness to satisfy the demand of the applicant, she was beaten by the applicants and due to the said incident, the victim has committed suicide. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has shown the RC book of the motor cycle purchased in the month of January 2009 so also he has shown one more RC Book of another motor cycle purchased by family member of the applicant. It is urged that by considering the documents it cannot be said that demand of money was made for purchase of motorcycle. Apart from this fact, it is urged that since 5 months the applicant is in jail and now as the investigation is over, there are no chances of tampering of prosecution witnesses by the applicant and hence it is prayed to enlarge the applicant on bail. 4. Learned APP opposed the application contending that {3} there is direct nexus between the death of the victim and the role played by the applicant. 5. Considering the papers of investigation and documents on record it is clear that there cannot be demand of money for purchase of motor cycle when the applicant’s father has purchased a motor cycle in the month of January 2009 i.e. 8 months prior to the alleged incident. Apart from it, the incident occurred outside and in front of the house. During the course of investigation, no independent witness is examined to support th statements made in the complaint. Considering this fact and also in view of the fact that now the investigation is over, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 6. In the result, application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. Applicant is directed not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4205-09