1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4184/2011 Kalu @ Karim Rasul Arab Etc. Applicants. V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra etc. Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------- Mr.R.R.Mantri Advocate for applicants. Mr.D.R.Korde APP respondent/s ------------------------------------------------------- .... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J. DATE : 17th OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Perused investigation papers, which were made available for the inspection purpose, as well as heard learned respective counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicants seeking regular bail, in connection with Crime No.73/2011, registered at Chopada City Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120 B of Indian Penal 2 Code. 3. It appears that initially A.D. was registered on 29.5.2011, regarding the death of victim Harunkhan and there after the victim's wife namely Akilabi Shaikh Harun Khan lodged the complaint on 30.5.2011, in respect of murder of her husband namely Harunkhan and accordingly offence came to be registered against the applicants herein. According to the complainant, there was marriage of complainant's sister namely Noorjahan on 29.5.2011 and therefore, the applicants herein attended the marriage Pandal where the deceased was there on 28.5.2011 and it is alleged that, they carried him away from the marriage pandal on the pretext that they shall have a round outside and thereafter, deceased i.e. husband of the complainant did not return back and his dead body was found lying in a canal nearby Chopda City. Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint with Chopada Police Station contending that the applicants herein took away her husband namely Harunkhan under the guise of consuming liquor and has committed his murder by throwing him in a water canal. Accordingly, the applicants came to be arrested under the said offence. 4. Apparently, there is incriminating evidence against the applicants in the nature of last seen together. In the said context, there are about 12-13 witnesses who saw the applicants 3 and victim Harunkhan together before the death of the said deceased Harunkhan such as Vandana Ramraj Bhoi, Jyoti Ramkrishna Asane, Vandanabai Suresh Malche, Rashidkhan Babukhan, Shabbir Nazir Pathan, Shaikh Naim Shaikh Waliyoddin, Satish @ Nana Jyotiram Patil waiter, Jahiroddin Isamoddin, Gayaskhan Vazirkhan, Bashirkhan Sabdarkhan, Imrankhan Gayaskhan, Shakilkhan Pirankhan, Salimkhan Amirkhan, and Shaikh Husnoddin Shahabuddin. 5. Statement of Shabbir Pathan dated 6.6.2011 discloses that he had seen the victim Harunkhan and applicants together who had left for consuming liquor from tea stall of one Patel, and thereafter after lapse of about two hours they received phone call that he and applicant no.2 committed murder of said Harunkhan. It was stated to him that, Harun khan had also drunk liquor heavily and applicants pushed him in a water canal and they committed murder in the said manner. Said narration made by the applicant No.1 before Shabbir Khan also appears to be extra judicial confession which implicates the applicant nos.1 and 2 in the alleged crime. 6. Moreover, postmortem report discloses injuries as mentioned in clause No.17 thereof, on the person of the victim Harunkhan and cause of death discloses that “Asphyxia due to drowning”, which apparently is in tune with the statement of 4 Shabbir Pathan and extra judicial confession made by the applicant No.1 before him. No doubt, there is circumstantial evidence, and witnesses who had last seen together the victim and applicants as well as extra judicial confession made by the applicant No.1 before Shabbir Pathan amounts to incriminating evidence against the applicants and, consequently, it leads to complicity of the applicants in the crime. It is also alleged that amount of Rs. 15,000/- to 17,000/- was with the victim Harunkhan and same was in his pocket when he accompanied with the applicants but the said amount was not found on his person and hence, apparently there appears to be theft of the said amount as motive behind the murder of the victim Harunkhan. 7. In the circumstances, although investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the applicants do not deserve grant of bail and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 8. In the result, present application bears no substance and hence same stands dismissed. 9. The above observations are primafacie in nature, same may not be used in any other matter, being decided on merits. Present application stands disposed of finally. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE aaa/ ***