1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No.515/2011 ( Sunil S/o Mahadeorao Pali ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S. Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Adv. for applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for State/respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 8.11.2011. 1. On 5/9/2010 one Avinash Sadashiv Mankar lodged F.I.R. in the police station Wadgaon alleging that his brother-in-law by name Yogesh Damodhar Palkandwar, aged 28 years, was assaulted by four assailants including the applicant. All the four assailants were armed with deadly weapons. The applicant was holding Gupti. The deceased succumbed to the injuries which were 26 in number. As per the F.I.R. the motive for the crime was that the deceased had married one Namrata, the daughter of one Jagdish Mishra. The grievance of the assailants was that the deceased had married the girl belonging to their caste. Besides the eye witness account of the first informant there are statements of the witnesses namely Nitin Tawade, Mangesh Gole, Ajay Mishra, Nilesh Hanvat and Murlidhar Belekar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks release of the 2 applicant/accused on the ground that prima facie the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not disclosed against the applicant. According to him, the applicant belongs to caste ‘Dhangar’ and as such he has nothing to do with the inter-caste marriage performed by the deceased. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was one of the assailants and the case of the prosecution rests upon the eye witnesses account. That being so, the proof of motive is insignificant. The second contention is about non-seizure of blood stained clothes and the weapon from the possession of the applicant. Investigation reveals that from the possession of the co-accused by name Rajkumar blood stained clothes and knife were seized. From the possession of other co-accused by name Ashok blood stained clothes were seized. From the possession of the third co-accused by name Salman knife and blood stained clothes were seized. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State states that the applicant was arrested on the day of incident and was sent to hospital as he had complained chest pain. From the case diary it can be seen that till 23/9/2010 the accused was in the hospital. Whatever the reasons may be, the fact remains that besides eye witness account of the first informant by name Avinash Mankar there are eye witnesses namely Mangesh Gole, Nilesh Hanvat and Ajay Mishra categorically pointing out the role of the applicant in assaulting the deceased with Gupti. 3 In that view of the matter, the proof of motive, non-seizure of blood stained clothes and the weapon become insignificant particularly, while deciding the bail application. The contention of learned counsel for applicant that there was delay in recording the statements of the witnesses is not correct in the sense that the statements of Mangesh, Nilesh were recorded on the very day of incident i.e. on 5/9/2010. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the applicant/accused was enlarged on temporary bail on the ground of illness of his father and during that period he did not breach any condition. It is also his contention that deceased was man of bad antecedents since many crimes have been registered against him. These grounds are also not germane while deciding the bail application. 4. Considering the gravity of the offence, the role played by the applicant/accused, it would not be desirable to release the applicant/accused on bail. 5. The application is rejected. 6. Needless to mention that learned trial Court while conducting the trial shall not be influenced by the observations made herein-above. JUDGE Tambaskar.