1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.519 OF 2010 1. Rameshwar Fakira Thokal, Age-28 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 2. Dnyaneshwar Fakira Thokal, Age-35 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 3. Subhash Fakira Thokal, Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculturist, All are R/o.Malegaon Thokal, Tq.Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for applicants. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 10/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No. 114/2009, registered in Pishor Police Station, for the offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of The IPC, in which the first applicant was arrested on 03/10/2009 while applicant no. 2 and 3 were 2 arrested on 26/10/2009. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed on 26/01/2010. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State and also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Considering the post mortem notes, it is to be safely inferred that death of deceased Rekha is un-natural death. There are allegations in the complaint that due to quarrel took place between the family of these applicants and deceased on the ground that applicant Dnyaneshwar who is applicant no.2 in the present application, suspecting that Rekha has stolen the ornaments from his residence. On the earlier day, i.e. on 25/10/2009, when deceased Rekha had been to her paternal house, at that time, applicant Dnyaneshwar have gone there and insisted Rekha to accompany him to Pishor Police Station to which she denied. Then she was threatened that she will be parade in the village without clothes on her person, and they will see how she will alive if she will not accompany him to the police station. There are allegations that on the next day morning at 7.00 a.m. when Rekha had been to the well near the house of the complainant to fetch water, these applicants alongwith their father Fakira and their wives, assembled near the well and threw her in the well. There can not be a mistaken identity. 4. Bail is claimed because there are sweeping allegations and no 3 role is attributed to the individual applicant as to who has thrown Rekha in the well. The death of Rekha is due to drowning and auspicia is can not be disputed as stated earlier. The application of these applicants can not be treated as on parity, as those who were released on bail, one Fakira is 60 years old, while the remaining others were ladies. Merely because specific role is not attributed as to who threw Rekha in the well, but all these persons assembled together and it is a joint act on their part, can not be reduced the liability saddled on them when a living person was thrown in the well in the early morning and witnessed by the complainant. Even though there is some delay in lodging the complaint, no doubt there is no any reason to disbelieve the facts disclosed in the complaint. At the same time, two eye witnesses have witnessed that Rekha was thrown in the well at the hands of these applicants and others. In the premise, application sans any merit, stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.519-10