1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2010. (Devidas @ Deva Bhayyaji Naukarkar .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.P. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.S. Fulzele, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. 04TH MARCH, 2010. Heard submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent/State. It appears that only a plea for bail by the present applicant was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora on 31.07.2009. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that in view of the judgment in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia .v. State of Bihar (reported in AIR 1966 SC 119), It appears in that the conviction and sentence was set aside and evidence as to discovery of the dead body and tangi in consequence of the information and discovery of blood stained chadar from the appellant's house was not found sufficient to convict the appellant. Earlier in the present case, it appears that the first informant reported the incident who specifically named the present applicant as well as one Vinod Mate (absconding) as the persons who had taken away deceased Kailash Madavi who never returned to the house and about missing of Kailash, police were informed on 06.02.2009. Later on, it is also alleged that Rakesh Janu Dadmal, Prakash Ramesh Nakwe and Dnyaneshwar Gulab Madavi had received phone call from the present applicant as the applicant wanted to 2 know as to what was the reaction in the town about missing of Kailash Madavi. It is also alleged that extra judicial confession was made to this witnesses by the applicant himself and one Vinod Mate (absconding) for committing murder of said Kailash. During the course of investigation, after arrest of the present applicant, skeleton which is said to be that of the deceased when recovered in respect of which expert opinion has also obtained, indicating that bones were belonging to Kailash. Under these circumstances, considering the material collected during the investigation so far as also that one of the co-accused is still absconding, if released on bail, the present applicant may cause danger to the lives of the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Hence, I am not prepared to take different view of the matter than the learned Sessions Judge, Warora. Criminal Application stands rejected as such. However, the learned trial Judge is expected to hear the sessions trial as early as possible preferably within three months. The observations made herein are only for the purposes of deciding the bail application and shall not influence the learned trial Court for deciding the sessions case on merit. JUDGE *rrg.