1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4534/2008 (Rajesh Jeevan Jangle and another..vs.. State of Mah. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 29 th APRIL, 2009 Heard Shri Mahesh Singh, Advocate, for the applicants and Shri Mandpe, APP, for respondent State. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicants are being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of Cr.P.C., allegedly committing the murder of one Shrawan Agarkar. Some important facts need to be noted. The report appears to have been lodged by the nephew of the deceased Radheshyam Agarkar at about 5.40 a.m. on 9.6.2008. The incident is stated to have been committed at about 1.30 a.m. The F.I.R. shows that Mahendra Dahiwale, Mangesh Dahiwale and Munna Nagose went to the house of Radheshyam Agarkar and told that his uncle Shrawan Agarkar was seen murdered in the field of one Verma at about 1 - 1.30 a.m. The report is lodged saying that some “unknown person” had assaulted deceased Shrawan 2 Agarkar and killed him. The learned APP has pressed into service the statement of Mahendra Dahiwale to contend that he is an eye witness to the incident which is recorded on 9.6.2008. He had made statement before the police that he had seen the incident and the present applicant had assaulted the deceased by weapon and by stones and thereafter killed him. It is necessary to note that in the report, it is mentioned that some unknown person has committed the offence of murder in respect of Shrawan Agarkar. Surprisingly; though Mahendra Dahiwale is stated to have told about noticing of dead body of Shrawan Agarkar in the filed of Verma, he did not tell, at that time, who was the assailant when he had in fact seen the commission of offence. This casts doubts on the statement of the witness Mahendra Dahilwale. One more thing which needs to be noted is the fact that both the applicants were apprehended by the Police Officer of Wadi Police Station at about 3 a.m. on 9.6.2008 and later on released at about 8.10 a.m. on the same day. They were perhaps apprehended as a preventive action, but at that time nothing about this offence was disclosed either by them or even the I.O. did not suspect any foul thing against them. Though it can not be positively said that they may not be connected with the offence, but then there is doubt. Learned APP has referred to the offences 3 pending against the applicant no.1. Some of them are serious including one under Section 307 and other under Sections 337 and 324 of the IPC. But unless the involvement of the applicants ins the present offence is clearly established, these previous offences cannot be taken into consideration. Here is the case where the statement of star witness Mahendra Dahiwale on facts appears to be some what doubtful. Therefore, the applicants would be entitled for bail, however, subject to conditions. Each of the applicants be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs. 25,000/- subject to conditions that they shall report at Police Station Kalmeshwar on every first Sunday of each month at 11 a.m. till the trial is concluded or until further orders and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. They shall not also commit any offence as a condition attached to the bail. Bail in lower Court. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and the same shall not influence the trial Judge in any way while deciding the matter on merits. Application disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit