1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3608 /2009 (Likhendra Dhanlal Katre vs. State of Maharashtra) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A S Mardikar, Adv.for applicant Mr S B Ahirkar , Adv.for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 6, 2010. Heard. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 46 /2009 reported against him for offence punishable under sections 302 and 506 IPC. at Goregaon Police Station, Dist. Gondia. Sessions Case No.101/2009 is pending before the Sessions Court, Gondia. Learned Advocate for the applicant in support of the application, contended that the material collected during the investigation may not implicate the applicant ultimately for the offence of murder as, according to him, the evidence relied upon as a discovery of weapon of offence is farcical and the nature of injuries which were found present on the dead body were inflicted as a result of quarrel, therefore, the applicant may not ultimately convicted for the offence of murder but for a lesser offence, assuming that the material to be true. However, learned Advocate for the 2 applicant prays for grant of bail on the ground that charge-sheet is already filed and sessions case is pending. 2. Learned APP on the other hand, strongly objected grant of bail on the ground that there are two eye witnesses to the incident. The first informant Manish had implicated the applicant in the serious offence which was initially registered u/s 307 and converted into section 302 IPC in the course of investigation. According to the eye witness to the incident, the present applicant was seen armed with an axe, by means of which he had repeatedly assaulted the deceased-Bhaurao causing injury on vital part of the body i.e. head. According to the eye witness Manish and Omprakash , axe blows were given at least four or five times in the result Bhaurao had fallen down. It is further contended that the post mortem notes do indicate that four chop wounds on the dead body in column no.17 of the PM Notes; whereas the opinion as to cause of death mentioned as head injuries. It is further submitted by learned APP that one of the weapons was discovered at the instance of the applicant in the course of investigation which was found blood stains and report from expert is still awaited. Thus, learned APP stoutly objected grant of bail. 3. Prima facie, perusal of material collected during the course of investigation indicates involvement of the applicant in the crime reported. Considering that there are two eye witnesses as also circumstantial 3 evidence, the applicant is not entitled for benefit of bail. If released, he is likely to tamper with the evidence as prospects of his long sentence as a result of the trial, cannot be ruled out. Hence the application is rejected. However, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the trial on merits, as early as possible. It is made clear that observations made herein-above are for limited purpose of rejection of the bail and shall not be considered while considering the evidence of trial, on merits. JUDGE sahare