BABU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. S. D. Munde for the applicant in Criminal Application No.2219 of 2020. For the reasons stated in the application, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B". Criminal application accordingly disposed off.

(2.) The applicants are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.150 of 2020 registered with Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 143 , 147 , 149 , 341 , 504 , 506 , 201 of the I.P.C. Their application with similar prayer bearing Criminal Bail Application No.478 of 2020 came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the prosecution case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence in this case. The learned counsel submits that even there is no chain of circumstantial evidence. There is circumstantial evidence in the form of initial quarrel with the informant and the other family members inquiring with them, the whereabouts of deceased Babasaheb, however, no further connecting evidence is against the applicants. The learned counsel submits that even the motive as alleged is also not adequate. It has been simply alleged that deceased Babasaheb had talked to the wife of co- accused Chandrashekhar on her mobile, however, it is not clear from the investigation papers as to what led all the accused persons, particularly these two applicants to commit the murder of deceased on that count. The learned counsel submits that there is no criminal history. The applicants are having their roots in the society. They are easily available for trial. The applicants are ready to abide any conditions, if imposed by this Court, while enlarging them on bail. The applicants may be released on bail.