1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3745 OF 2009 1. Birbal @ Ishwar S/o.Shatrughan Sathe, and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.P.Patil, learned counsel for the applicants. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 13/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants who are accused in Crime No.90/2009, registered in Chakur Police Station, Dist. Latur for an offence punishable u/s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(X) of the Atrocities Act have prayed to release them on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP Smt.Kshirsagar appearing for respondent State. As the notice of this application was already served on the respondent State, the papers of investigation till carried out were placed in my hand at the time of hearing of this application. 2 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, according to learned advocate appearing for the applicant that on plain reading of the contents of FIR, the specific role played by these applicants do not disclose the overact committed by them. It is also urged that the person who were seriously injured by name Ram Kondiram Kamble, expired later on, and the acts committed by these applicants do not attributed as the nexus between the death of said Ram Kondiram as he has nothing to do with the dispute between the complainant and these applicants and lastly he placed reliance on the order passed by this Court on 08/09/2009 in connection with this offence by which two applicants namely Vijaykumar and Baliram were released by this Court and claimed on the ground of parity that these applicants be also released on bail. Considering the disclosure of the role played by these accused from the papers of investigation, learned APP opposed this application. 4. Papers of investigation discloses that an offence was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by one Dagadu about the incident occurred in the morning of 05/06/2009. It is alleged in the said complaint that due to dispute between the fencing put up on the road by the applicants, quarrel took place between complainant and the applicants. When the scuffle took place between these parties, Rama came there to intervene and due to assault by the applicants and others, he sustained serious injuries. On the basis of this complaint, after the offence was registered, further investigation was carried out and when the injured Rama Kamble was admitted in the hospital, 3 later on he expired in the hospital. 5. In the papers of investigation, postmortem notes finds place about the autoscopy conducted by this Rama Kamble on 06/06/2009. Surface injuries mentioned in coloumn no.17 corresponding to internal injuries to coloumn no.19 of these postmortem notes shows that there is fracture to the skull and the death of the deceased was caused due to head injury. These are the corresponding injuries about the surface injuries and the internal injuries. Then the fact is clear that the death of the deceased is homicidal death. 6. In this case, the charge sheet is filed and when the charge sheet is filed, while granting or rejecting the bail, the investigation carried out before filing of the charge sheet and the statements recorded of the witnesses required to be considered. There are statement of 4 eye witnesses who have witnessed this incident. In their statements, the fact revealed that these applicants alongwith Sham Sathe chessed the deceased and assaulted with the sticks in their hand on his head. Earlier I have pointed out that the postmortem notes shows that there are surface injuries as mentioned in coloumn no.17 corresponding to internal injuries as mentioned in coloumn no.19 of the postmortem notes which shows that there is fracture to the skull which injury is due to hard and blunt substance. Statement of eye witnesses clearly indicate the assault by these applicants, then even though there is no clear reference about 4 the assault by these applicants, but the role played by these applicants came on record by way of statement of the eye witnesses. In the premise, the case of these applicants is not at par with a case of those applicants who were released on bail vide order dated 08/09/2009. On the contrary, the injury caused due to role played by these applicants directly relates to the death of deceased. In the premise, as the offence charged is punishable under life imprisonment or death, no case made out to use the discretion to enlarge the accused on bail. In the premise, application fails and require following order : O R D E R Application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3745-09