1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 440/2011 Pankaj s/o Jeevan Patil ( ..VERSUS.. ) State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 17/9/2011. Heard Mr. A.C. Jaltare, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. S. Doifode, learned APP for the respondent. The applicant, who has been arrested by P.S.O. Mauda in Crime No. 45/2011 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act has filed the present application for bail. The case of the prosecution in short as per the complaint lodged by Bahurao Waghmare on 6.3.2011 is as follows:- “On the night of 5.3.2011 the brother of the complainant Tejaram Waghmare was killed by unknown persons”. In the present application, the applicant therefore claims that he has been arrested only on the suspicion though he is completely innocent. 2 By way of reply, the respondent has resisted the application on the ground that there is strong prima facie evidence against the applicant. Perusal of the record reveals that the deceased had sustained 53 chop wounds all over the body and cause of death is head injury associated with stab injury to left lung. Hence, prima facie, death is homicidal. As per the statement of Dadarao Hirekhan, Shubham Hirekhan and Manjit Landge accused persons were seen near the field Dhura with a motorcycle and accused no.1 Mukesh asked them whether the deceased would be coming there and they had answered in the affirmative. It was after some time that shouts “save me, save me” were heard. There is statement of Shridhar Bhavne to the effect that on the day of incident at night time the applicant and Mukesh had come to his house on the motorcycle and Mukesh had stated that deceased Tejram has committed black magic on his father and therefore they wanted to kill Tejram. According to Shridhar, the applicant and Mukesh wanted him to accompany them for committing the said crime but he refused. The said motorcycle as also shirt, pant, dupatta with blood stains have been recovered at the instance of the present applicant. Even some articles of accused no.1 Mukesh have been recovered at the instance of the present applicant. Near the field of Deorao Meshram, the spot panchanama has been conducted and the cycle of the deceased, handle of the gupti with blood stains, soil mixed with blood etc. were 3 found. It is difficult to rely upon the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no prima facie evidence against the applicant. In my view, records reveal prima facie evidence of murder against him. In this matter, charge-sheet has been filed in May 2011 and the case has been registered as Sessions Trial No. 240/2011. The application for bail filed by the present applicant before the learned Sessions Judge in-charge of the said case, was rejected on 21.6.2011. Thereafter the applicant had approached this Court vide Criminal Application (BA) No. 367/2011 but on 19/7/2011 he had withdrawn the said application. However, it is reported that no improvement is made in the Sessions Trial and the circumstances are the same, which were existing as on 19.7.2011. No case is made out for granting bail at this stage. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.