{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4071 OF 2009 Bhaginath Jagannath Jadhav APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4072 OF 2009 Rajendra s/o Sopan Karad & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4204 OF 2009 Babasaheb Dada Dalvi APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.R.K.Tamkar, Advocate for applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the State Mr.Y.V.Kakade, Advocate assisting to APP ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 4th December 2009 {2} PER COURT: 1. By the present applications, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No.54/2009 registered with Shevgaon police station for an offence punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As all the three applications arise out of the same offence, the same are disposed of by this common order. 3. Before considering the rival submissions, it has to bear in mind that the death of Sarang Nakade was registered with Shevgaon police station on 24.th May 2009 as an accidental death, as the body of said Sarang was found in a well. It further appears that after the 10 th day ceremony was over, a complaint came to be lodged by the father of the deceased on 03.06.2009. On the basis of the said complaint an offence came to be registered with Shevgaon police station at CR No.54/2009 against one Santosh Dalvi and Bhausaheb Dolas. Both the accused were arrested and are released on bail on 29.07.2009. It also appears that viscera of the deceased was preserved and thereafter the same was sent for chemical test. It appears that the report of the same was received on 03.10.2009 wherein the cause of death is shown as due to slow poisoning because of consumption of insecticide used for spraying {3} on crop and not by drowning. After receipt of the report, the direction of investigation was changed. It further appears that the servant of one Rangnath Karad, by name Sikandar, had left his job immediately after the said incident and had fled to his native. His statement came to be recorded where he has stated the incident witnessed by him in the evening of 24th May 2009. On the basis of the said statement, the accused came to be arrested on 24th October 2009 and 27th October 2009. Pursuant to the report of the CA, the earlier offence registered u/s 306 came to be converted into on u/s 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicants, amongst others, came to be arrayed as accused. Since their arrest, the applicants are in jail and now they have approached this Court for their release on bail. 4. During the course of submission, it is urged that the applicants are arrested after a gap of 5 months in connection with the incident occurred in the month of May 2009. According to applicants, there is no evidence against them. It is also urged that the so called statement of the alleged eye witness is recorded on 06.10.2009 after a period of more than 4 and ½ months and there is no explanation as to why the statement was recorded after such a long gap. In the premise, it is urged that considering the peculiar facts of the present case, and in view of the fact that the applicants are behind the bar, since October 2009, they be released on bail. 5. While opposing the bail applications, it is urged that {4} the investigation is in progress, the statement of the eye witness, recorded on 06.10.2009, clearly indicate involvement of the applicants in the said offence, which is also corroborated by the CA Report and also in view of the fact that there are reasons as motive as one of the applicant Rajendra had suspected that the deceased had illicit relations with his second wife and hence the deceased is murdered by administering insecticide and thrown the dead body in a well to conceal the offence and hence it is requested to reject the applications. 6. From the report of the CA it can safely be inferred that the death of the deceased was not due to drowning but the same was due to slow poisoning. Hence, it has to be considered that the said report of the CA was received on 03.10.2009 and till then the entire line of investigation in respect of death of Sarang was in the direction that the death had occurred due to drowning in a well. In the premise, it cannot be said that though the incident occurred on 24th May 2009 yet the statement of the eye witness is recorded at a belated stage. It has also to bear in mind that the applicants as well as family of the deceased are settled in a village Shevgaon whereas the eye witness is a labour working in a field and he was also under the threat of his life. It is to be noted that the statement of the master of the eye witness discloses that after the said incident, his servant, the eye witness, had left the job and had fled away and later on he was found at this native place and subsequently his statement came to be recorded. The eye witness {5} has stated that the applicants had forced the deceased to lie on the ground and then administered the poison and while they were administering the poison, the deceased was lying in a water channel and thereafter, when the accused confirmed that he is dead, his body was thrown in a well. In the premise, and considering the way and manner in which the incident is stated by the eye witness, if the present applicants are released on bail at this stage, when the investigation is in progress, then the entire investigation may hamper and it is certain that the applicants may tamper the prosecution witnesses. In the premise, the applicants do not deserve liberty, at least at this stage. 7. In the result, the applications stand rejected. 8. It is, however, made clear that the above observations are prima facie observations based on the papers of investigation. The learned Sessions Judge not to influence by the said observations while deciding application, if moved by the applicants for their release on bail, after filing of the charge sheet. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln4071-09