MP 1 BA1832_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1832 OF 2011 Jitendra Rajan Patel @ Chaudhary ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents Ms Pranali Kakade i/b. Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt.R.V.Newton, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER 2011 P. C. : The applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime No.136 of 2011 registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case, as per the F.I.R. lodged by Vitthal Gaikwad is that his brother Sunil Gaikwad used to supply centering plates to accused Jaynarayan Paramhans Chouhan on hire basis for about 3-4 years. The said Jaynarayan Chouhan is a construction contractor. However, Jaynarayan Chouhan had failed to make payment of hire, and therefore, some dispute had occurred between the two. On 06.03.2011, at about noon time, Sunil Gaikwad was arguing with Jaynarayan Chouhan. At that time, two other persons, who are identified as present applicant Jitendra Rajan Patel and one Dinesh Chaudhari, were also present. The witness Sachin Modak advised them to settle the matter amicably and went away. However, thereafter Sunil Gaikwad never returned home. The motorcyle of Sunil Gaikwad was seen lying near the house of accused No.1 Jaynarayan Chouhan and that was seized as unclaimed property by the police. Due to this, first informant Vitthal Gaikwad raised suspicion about accused No.1 Jaynarayan Chouhan. On 13.04.2011, Jaynarayan Chouhan was arrested and he allegedly MP 2 BA1832_11 informed the police that he and his two companions namely Bhupendra and Dinesh had assaulted on the head of Sunil Gaikwad with sticks and thereafter, strangulated him and disposed of his body. On the basis of that information, the dead body was recovered. Some other articles were also seized. On the basis of the statement of Jaynarayan, the present applicant also came to be arrested. On the basis of the information given by the applicant, a stick which was allegedly used in commission of the offence and his clothes were recovered. 3. It is true that there is no eyewitness. The whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. From the circumstances, there appears motive of Jaynarayan, and from the evidence collected by police, it appears that the present applicant was present along with Jaynarayan when the dispute was going on 06.03.2011 between Jaynarayan and Sunil. The confessional statements of Jayprakash and the present applicant leading to discovery of material evidence provides corroboration to the prosecution case. Taking into consideration the circumstantial evidence and the post-mortem report which also reveal that the death had occurred due to injury on the head associated with strangulation, prima facie, there is material to show that Sunil was murdered and the present applicant was involved in commission of that crime. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. If bail is granted, there is every possibility that the applicant may either abscond or may tamper with the prosecution evidence. 4. Therefore, the application stands rejected. 5. As the accused persons are in custody since April 2011, the trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the case as early as possible, and in any case, before the end of June 2012. (J. H. BHATIA, J)