JUDGMENT - M.S. VAIDYA, J.:---Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. Heard Mr. A.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 1258/1993 and Mr. S.N. Loya, Counsel for the petitioners in rest of the two applications. Heard Mr. A.S. Bajaj, learned A.P.P. for State in all the three Applications. Mr. Bajaj made available to us the police papers for investigation. 3. A boy by name Vaijnath, whose age is shown to be about 18 years in the post-mortem examination notes, was found dead at about 8.00 a.m. on 15-8-1993 in a field at village Lasur. In connection with that death, the petitioners in the three petitions and two others are accused of the offence of murder and the offence punishable under section 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Out of six accused, one is already released on bail. Earlier two petitions bearing Nos. 1339/1993 and 1310/1993 were preferred by the present petitioners for bail, but they were disposed of after granting them liberty to apply after charge-sheet is filed. Now, that the charge-sheet is filed in the matter, the parties had moved the Sessions Judge for bail. As the same was rejected they have approached this Court. 4. According to the prosecution story, deceased-Vaijnath was a son of first informant-Eknath. Vaijnath was working at his own residence till about 7.30 p.m. 14-8-1993. Thereafter, he received a message that he was called by one-Shrirang Wakde. It is not the case that in response to that message the deceased had gone directly to Shrirang. On the other hand, the prosecution case is that, when this message was received first informant-Eknath himself had deputed the mother of Vaijnath to the house of Shrirang to find out why Shrirang had not returned home. Neither Shrirang nor Vaijnath were there at the residence of Shrirang. Therefore, Eknath went out in search of Vaijnath and at about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m. He went to the residence of Santosh Tukaram where he had found Raju Tukaram sleeping on the otta. When questioned, Raju had told him that Vaijnath had gone out with petitioner-Jagannath Barse. Whereabouts of Vaijnath were not known during the night, and in the next morning at about 8.00 a.m. his dead body was found in a field. As per the Inquest Report, a tin of an insecticides was lying by his side. 5. When questioned, Raju had told him that Vaijnath had gone out with petitioner-Jagannath Barse. Whereabouts of Vaijnath were not known during the night, and in the next morning at about 8.00 a.m. his dead body was found in a field. As per the Inquest Report, a tin of an insecticides was lying by his side. 5. In course of time, post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Vaijnath. Some small contusions, abrasions were found on his dead body and whitish sticky fluid was seen in trachea and yellowish greenish oily fluid with garlicky smell was found in the stomach. On the basis of the findings recorded by the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination, an opinion was recorded that the death had occurred within four to five hours of the last meal. A primary opinion was registered as to the cause of death to the effect that death was due to insecticidal poisoning. The viscera was sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination and the report dated 1-9-1993 showed the positive findings in respect of organo-phosphorus insecticide Monocrotophos in two items of viscera was not recognisable, poison was detected in third item of viscera. Neither the post-mortem examination notes nor the report of Chemical Analyser record that any alcohol was found in the stomach or in the viscera, which was preserved. 6. According to the prosecution, the motive behind the murder of Vaijnath was his alleged affair with a girl known as Pinky, who happened to be the daughter of Kisanrao Barhate. This Kisanrao Barhate happens to be the brother of the absconding accused Dnyaneshwar Barhate. The statement of this girl was recorded on 18-8-1993 and in her statement, the girl had totally negatived the story regarding the alleged love-affair between deceased Vaijnath and Raju. 7. On this background, the prosecution wanted to rely mainly on the evidence of two star witnesses-Santosh Baliram Jadhav and Raju Tukaram Jadhav, who are boys aged 20 and 16 years respectively. According to these two witnesses, they and deceased Vaijnath were called at the house of Ramesh Jadhav at about 8.00 p.m. on 14-8-1993. At that time, they and Vaijnath were beaten over the alleged affair of Vaijnath with Pinky. According to the prosecution, the several minor injuries which were found on the person of Vaijnath are accountable to this assault on Vaijnath. At that time, they and Vaijnath were beaten over the alleged affair of Vaijnath with Pinky. According to the prosecution, the several minor injuries which were found on the person of Vaijnath are accountable to this assault on Vaijnath. But, none of these two witnesses have said that Vaijnath was beaten so much that he had suffered such external hurts. The second part of the story narrated by these two witnesses relates to taking of these three boys to some place and making them drink two glasses of alcohol each. They contended that after this, Raju had vomited and that, therefore, Raju and Santosh had returned to the house of Santosh and had slept there. They say that, thereafter, Vaijnath alone was taken away by accused Jagannath with him. They did not tell that Jagannath had said anything as to where he was taking Vaijnath alongwith him. The prosecution does not have any evidence as to what had happened in the course of night. 8. The rest of the evidence collection by the prosecution deals with the peripheral matters. 9. For bringing home to the accused a guilt of the offence of murder by poisoning, it is necessary for the prosecution to collect the evidence that the death of the deceased was due to poisoning, that the poison which was detected in the viscera was in the custody of the accused, that they had an opportunity to administer the same to the deceased and that they or any one or more of them had administered the poison to the deceased or caused it to be administered and further that, in consequence of that, the death had occurred. Mr. Loya, was right in submitting that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not consider any of these aspects. 10. In the first place, the alleged motive has fallen to the ground with the negative statement of Pinky herself. Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that even if Vaijnath or any of his friends had some pranks at Pinky that had afford an adequate ground to any of the accused to think that Vaijnath deserve a death penalty for that. Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that even if Vaijnath or any of his friends had some pranks at Pinky that had afford an adequate ground to any of the accused to think that Vaijnath deserve a death penalty for that. Thirdly there is nothing on record to show that the poison which was found ultimately in the viscera of Vaijnath was ever in the custody of any of the accused and that, they had an opportunity to administer the same to Vaijnath. Next the story told by Raju and Santosh that the three boys were made to drink liquor does not find corroboration from the evidence contained in the post-mortem examination notes or in the report of the Chemical Analyser. None of them show that alcohol was found in the viscera or in the stomach. Indeed, there is no evidence collected whatsoever to show when the deceased had taken his last meal. The death is said to have occurred within four to five hours of the last meal. The mother or the father of Vaijnath do not say that Vaijnath had taken food at home at any time before 7.30 p.m. on 14-8-1993 when Vaijnath had left the house. There is no evidence collected on record to show that Vaijnath had taken his meals outside the house and, if yes, which was that place and who were the persons with him at the time of taking that last meal. It is difficult to say that the theory of last seen together could assist the prosecution much at this stage, at least, in the face of the circumstances indicated above and particularly in the face of the circumstances that none has said that after about 10.00 or 10.30 p.m. on 14-8-1993 deceased Vaijnath was ever seen in company of any of the accused persons. Added to this, the circumstance that Vaijnaths body was not found near anybodys house but was found in some field and the prosecution has nothing to show how Vaijnath had reached that place. It is also important to note that tin of that insecticide was also found by the side of his body but, there is no evidence to show that any force was used on Vaijnath for administering him of that poison. 11. It is also important to note that tin of that insecticide was also found by the side of his body but, there is no evidence to show that any force was used on Vaijnath for administering him of that poison. 11. When all these circumstances are considered together, it is difficult to suppose, at least, at this stage, that the prosecution has some good case against any of the petitioners for which they should be denied the benefit of bail. May it be that at the stage of trial, the prosecution can possibly, throw some light on which the points which are indicated above but, if such light is thrown by the prosecution on the considerations indicated above, the petitioners can be, then dealt with according to law. There is no reason, at this stage, at least, to deny them bail. The bail may be granted to them subject to certain restrictive circumstances, in view of the gravity of the offence and in view also of the possibility of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Hence the Order:-- O R D E R The petitioners in all the three petitions are be released on bail on each of them executing a PR bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties each in like amount, on the conditions:-- (i) That they shall not tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) That they shall report at Sillegaon Police Station twice a week i.e. on every Monday and Thursday between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. (iii) They shall not leave their native place without the permission of the Court which is for the time being seized of the matter. 12. Criminal Applications disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. Rule made absolute.