1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.652 OF 2010 Iqbal Ahemad S/o.Mohammea Abdul Rahim, (Original Name) Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Ahmed (Name mentioned in the Remand Yadi) Age-40 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Kamwada, Juna Bazar, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 26/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.1/10, registered in Beed (Rural) Police Station, for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 302, 201, 120-B r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. This offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Raosaheb Shendade about the murder of his brother Babasaheb at the hands of his wife by name Sunita and her two paramours, the present applicant and applicant Bapurao in Cri.Appl.667/2010. Considering the facts which are before this Court, it reveals that before lodging of the said offence, earlier two complaints were lodged, one by Sunita and one by Raosaheb about missing of Babasaheb since 07/07/2009. Those complaints were private complaints lodged in the Court of C.J.M. Thereafter it appears that one dead body was found in the well of Sudhakar Mane in the afternoon of 02/01/2010, which was identified by the complainant as the dead body of his brother and accordingly offence came to be registered, wherein on the same day, Sunita came to be arrested. During her PCR, she was interrogated and in that interrogation, she made disclosure statement that on 07/07/2009, in the field of present applicant, she arranged a party, where applicant Bapurao in Cri.Appl.667/2010, she herself and her husband were participated. After liquor was consumed by Babasaheb, he was strangulated by muffler and with the help of others, the dead body was thrown in the well, which was recovered on 02/01/2010. 4. When on the earlier date, this application was heard, at that time, post mortem report was not available. Hence on the statement of learned APP, Investigation Officer was directed to remain present in the Court alongwith post mortem notes. This copy of the post mortem notes is a clue and given the answers of number of things. It is to be 3 noted that this dead body, as per the statement of accomplice, was lying in the well for more than 7 months. There is allegation of strangulation. In coloumn no.20(c), the organs are shown as intact. The contents of intestine shown presence of fluid and most important aspect that even after 7 months, clothes on the person of deceased are found intact which is again a surprise, which can not be accepted In the premise, even though it was vehemently urged that the disclosure statement of the accomplice to be believed, and the bail application to be refused, still the fact remains that in this modern world of science, all the scenario, which is placed before this court, is beyond any imagination, and if it is so, merely on the basis of statement of accomplice, the present applicant can not detain behind bars as the facts disclosed by the accomplice, in her statement, do not match with the reality. Hence the case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail by way of following order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to leave the local jurisdiction without previous permission in writing from the Investigation Officer concerned. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri-appl-652-10