20crn1983-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1983 OF 2010 Dnyaneshwar @ Mama Dhondiba Jadhav. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. P.G. Sarda, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 15th JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant/orig.accused No.1 in the matter of offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 20crn1983-10 2 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also for the offences of rioting. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by learned A.P.P. Mrs.Mhatre for the State that in the present matter there are 10 eye witnesses giving same evidence as to what happened on the fateful day on 14th November, 2009 at about 7:00 p.m.. Name of the present applicant along with other two coaccused is mentioned by the said witnesses as to active part taken by the applicant in the assault on the deceased. There are also allegations that after initial assault, deceased, then in injured condition, escaped and tried to ran away however he was chased by some persons who had earlier assaulted him and was brought again to the spot. That time, allegedly the present applicant instigated his associates to again do away with the deceased and thereafter again there was severe beating by means of sticks by the applicant and his associates total about 10 to 15 persons. After this 20crn1983-10 3 when such deceased, then injured, was lying on the ground in severely injured condition, he was taken in the vehicle of one of the associates of the applicant and was taken away from the spot. On the next day, dead body of the injured was found and it led to filing of the FIR by the brother of the deceased. 3. During the arguments, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mundargi for the applicant pointed out certain discrepancies in the FIR so as to at the initial stage said complainant not taking names of any of the persons and mentioning that the assault was by some unknown persons and unknown persons taking his brother in the vehicle. 4. On the strength of the said earlier filed complaint on 14.11.2009 initially offence was registered for kidnapping / abduction. Subsequently on finding of the dead body supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded and in which names of the present applicant and his associates appeared. According to the learned Senior Counsel 20crn1983-10 4 this improvement is fatal and is required to be considered while dealing with the present application for bail. 5. As against above arguments, learned A.P.P. Mrs.Mhatre for the State pointed out that there are ten eye witnesses who gave same account of the incident as to taking of deceased by the present applicant and his associates. She further submitted that though there is no direct eye witness as to what happened after the deceased was taken away from the spot in a jeep and in what manner his dead body was thrown, still the statements of the witnesses substantiate case of the prosecution and it is sufficient to render the present application for bail not to be granted. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that there is no recovery of any article at the instance of the present applicant. On this, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the applicant had shown the place where allegedly clothes of the deceased were burnt. This is significant for the 20crn1983-10 5 factual position that the dead body which was revealed on the next day of the incident was found in naked condition having severe injuries. 7. All the same, considering the above prima facie material mainly by way of statements of eye witnesses, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant present application for bail and hence the order :­ :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.1983 of 2010 stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)