1 ba36.12.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 36/2012 Sawalram Ananda Jadhav ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO PS Mankapur, Dist. Buldhana Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A. J. Thakkar, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. R. Deshpande, A.P.P. for non applicant. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2012. 1. Heard both sides. 2. On 30.07.2011 one Roopsingh, aged about 28 years and the brother of the complainant Manojsingh, had gone to consume liquor. He was assaulted in Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Malkapur, Buldhana. Roopsingh succumbed to injuries. Earlier, he had quarrel with Kashinath Jadhav, Madhav Jadhav and Sunil Jadhav, which was seen by the complainant. 3. In para 4 of the reply filed by the learned A.P.P. it is stated that, “It is submitted that although there is no direct evidence to the commission of the offence of murder of victim, but accused Mahadeo was seen with deceased at 8.00 p.m. The applicant played vital role in the commission of the offence which can not be ignored. It is submitted that the applicant caught hold of deceased and Mahadeo Kore prime accused gave successive blows of knife to the deceased.” 4. It is clarified by the learned A.P.P. that nothing has been seized from the present applicant. The only evidence against him is the statement of the co-accused and that too made before the Police. Needless to state that it is wholly inadmissible. Despite this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while rejecting the bail application, observed that, “Accused 2 ba36.12.odt Mahadeo Kore has made statement of which V.D.O. Shooting is made in which he has disclosed that remaining accused caught hold deceased Rupsing and he has well as accused Kashinath gave blows to Rupsing.” He further observed that, “In this way there is circumstantial evidence on record showing involvement of applicants in the heinous crime of murder. Since there is prima-facie circumstantial evidence against applicants/accused, in the opinion of this court, this is not a fit case to use discretion in favour of applicants to release them on bail.” 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge misdirected himself in reading the statement made by accused before the police and also committed an error by observing that there are circumstantial evidence, when there is nothing. 6. Considering the state of evidence against the accused, he is entitled to be released on bail. 7. The application is allowed. The applicant/accused is directed to be released on bail in Crime No.72/2011 registered with Police Station Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE kahale