1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: 3037 /2009 (Shivram Chinnan a Kumri and others vs. State of Maharashtra ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr R M Daga, Adv. for applicants Mr D P Thakare APP for Respondent C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 29th August, 2009. Heard submissions at the Bar. The applicants pray for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 2/2009 reported under sections 143, 147,148, 302 read with section 149 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, at Telda Sub Police Station: Camp Bamni Tq. Sironcha, Dist. Gadchiroli. The applicants were implicated by first informant-Sunita D/o Mondi, who lodged FIR against these applicants along with others, - who are in all nine persons. According to learned Advocate for the applicants, the first informant is the niece of the deceased, while one more alleged eye witness Mrs. Laxmi Chandraling is the real sister of the deceased who imputed the offence of murder by an unalwful assembly. However in the course of investigation when some of the statements of alleged eye witnesses were recorded, namely, Ramayya, Devaji, Bapu Bramiahya and Sadanand, they consistently appear to have stated that there was scuffle between the deceased-Rajesh and Anklu Borkute and in the course of scuffle Anklu had caught hold of collar of the ‘T’ shirt of Rajesh and took out the knife from his waist portion and stabbed Rajesh on the back side and thereafter again repeated blows were given on the stomach and chest; whereas persons who were watching the incident, due to fear, ran away towards their houses while deceased was raising shouts in Telugu language. These statements appears to have been recorded in the course of investigation on 18.2.2009 2 and 19.2.2009 after the FIR was recorded on 11.2.2009 ; while statement of another alleged eye witness Laxmi was recorded on 27.2.2009. Under these circumstances, learned Advocate for the applicants contended that prima facie there appears inconsistency in the version of witnesses whose statements have been recorded in the course of investigation u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C.; while close relatives of the deceased alleged murder by unlawful assembly of nine persons. The independent witnesses who stated that they have seen the incident, alleged an active role attributed only to one Anklu, who is not the applicant before this Court and as such, the benefit of inconsistency, if any, according to the learned Advocate for the applicants would be claimed by the applicants/accused and, therefore, they are entitled for grant of bail. Learned Advocate for the applicants also contended that one of the co-accused Ramesh was granted bail on 28.7.2009 by this Court, for identical reasons. 2. Learned APP did not dispute about the inconsistencies in the course of investigation between the statement of alleged eye witnesses, but contended that statements of two eye witnesses including the first informant cannot be entertained. Be that as it may; when such prima facie inconsistency appears in respect of the incident in the statement of eye witnesses the prospects of conviction of these applicants on the ground that they were members of the unlawful assembly committing the crime may appear to be remote, particularly when the alleged eye witnesses do not attribute any active role to them. It may be possible that they were seen in or around the time of the incident but that, by itself, cannot be a ground to detain them in the jail. Learned Advocate also stated that all these applicants are from village Glassfordpetha Tq. Sironcha Dist. Gadchiroli and they are agriculturists by occupation and have families to maintain. Therefore, although accusations are serious in nature, considering the evidence as discussed above, the applicants may be released upon bail. Hence the following order is passed : The applicants be released on bail connection with Crime No. 2/2009 reported under sections 143, 147,148, 302 read with section 149 of the 3 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, at Telda Sub Police Station: Camp Bamni Tq. Sironcha, Dist. Gadchiroli, on each of them executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, with one or more sureties in the like amount; with further conditions that applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not misuse their liberty. The applicants shall also inform their address/change in the address with phone/Cellphone no. if any, to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court. They shall attend the Sessions Court on each date of hearing. The application is disposed of. Humdast granted. JUDGE. sahare