1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.602 OF 2011 (AVINASH MADHUKAR RATHOD.//VS// STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PS ARNI, DISTT. YAVATMAL.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.C.Bhalerao, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. V.A.Thakre, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2011. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the applicant- accused on bail, against whom chargesheet under Sections 302, 376, 309 of the Indian Penal Code is submitted and is pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha. Vanita Rathod(since deceased) had married one Datta Rathod and out of this wedlock they have two children. Because of matrimonial dispute, she started residing with her father (Mohan Kaniram) in village Mahalungi, Tahsil : Arni, District : Yavatmal. The accused has a sister who is married to the brother of the deceased. Apart from this, they were having affairs. On 02.02.2011 the deceased left her house for going to her field. The accused also followed her. On that day till night the deceased did not return therefore, her search was taken. On 05.03.2011 her dead body was noticed. Post Mortem examination was conducted. The dead body was in decomposed condition. The Medical Officer opined that there were multiple fractures on the face and skull of the 2 deceased. On 07.03.2011 father of the deceased lodged first information report. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, they are : i) There is eyewitness who vouched that the deceased and the accused were having illicit relations. ii) There are witnesses who had seen the deceased going towards Ram Hill on 02.03.2011 in the noon. Witnesses remember the date because it was the day of 'Mahashivaratri'. iii) They saw the accused following her. iv) They further say that after 10-15 minutes accused had returned. He was walking fast and there were blood stains on his left shoulder and back of the shirt. v) Soon after this the accused consumed poison and for that he was admitted to the hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on 09.03.2011. vi) On 10.03.2011 the accused was arrested. vii)On 14.03.2011 the blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the accused. viii)Post mortem notes reveal that there were multiple fractures on the face and skull of the deceased. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that because of enmity with brother of the deceased false report has been lodged. He submitted that the sister of the accused is married with brother of the deceased by name Arun. This Arun started ill-treating his wife and this was the reason for acrimony between them. It is also contended that the statements of Malubai and Rohidas on the point of 'last seen' have been recorded on 8/9.03.2011. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution 3 are sufficient at this stage to point out prima-facie involvement of the accused in commission of the offence alleged against him. Considering the gravity and nature of the offence, it would not be desirable to release him on bail. The application is rejected. JUDGE RR..