BA-123-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2011 Kazi Dawood Shaikh ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Tokawade Police Station, Murbad, Thane ... Respondent Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, i/b. Mr. Amol Joshi, for the Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 16 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP, I have glanced through the Charge Sheet. 3. On 21st April, 2009, Jhingi - five years old daughter of the First Informant Deepak Vinayak Jadhav - was found missing from her house. It appears that the First Informant made some enquiries about her whereabouts and, ultimately, lodged a report on 24th April, 2009, with the Police, expressing his suspicion against the co-accused Ramesh Tanaji Wagh, Pintya Wagh and Bandhu Tukaram Wagh, that they must have kidnapped the said Jhingi. On 27th April, 2009, the dead body of Jhingi was found. 4. In the course of investigation, the statements of some persons came to be recorded, which show that Jhingi was taken away from her house by co- accused Ramesh Wagh and Poklya Pawar. The case of the Investigating Agency is that Jhingi was murdered by the said co-accused and the present BA-123-11.sxw 2 Dixit Applicant, who is a ‘Mantrik’. The object behind the murder is said to be to discover some secret treasure. 5. So far as the Applicant is concerned, I find that the case against him is that he is a ‘Mantrik’, and therefore he is the person behind the suggestion of giving a ‘Bali’, which was acted upon by the co-accused with the active participation of the Applicant. I hardly find any material against the Applicant which can be admissible as evidence in the trial. The case against him is based only on the statements made by the co-accused before Police. It is submitted that the Applicant had, in the course of interrogation, pointed out the place where the said Jhingi was murdered. There is also a statement of one shop keeper which speaks of some purchases made by the Applicant from the shop. The purchases are with respect to such articles as a ‘Mantrik’ may require and cannot be connected with the factum of murder. 6. The learned APP contended that considering the heinous nature of the offence, the Applicant should not be released on bail. In my opinion, the heinous nature of the offence or the magnitude and enormity of the crime, and the involvement of the particular accused in such crime are two totally different matters. Considering the nature of the material, on the basis of which the Applicant is being prosecuted, I think it fit to release him on bail. It may be observed, incidentally, that two of the co-accused have already been released on bail. 7. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in like amount. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]