BA-448-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.448 OF 2011 Uttam Muktaji Hirve ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru Chinchwad Police Station, Pune ... Respondent Mr. Sachin Thombare a/w. Mr. Sachin Pawar for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent. The Investigating Officer is present in person. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 18 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the Bail Application and the annexures thereto. 3. The son of the First Informant went on missing on 16th October, 2010. A missing report lodged by the wife of the First Informant stated that it was learnt that the missing son, namely Manoj Kasbe, had gone along with Raju Uttam Hirve - son of the Applicant and a co-accused in this case. When the dead body of the said Manoj was found, the First Information Report came to be lodged. It appears that, according to the Investigating Agency, the co-accused Raju Hirve made Manoj sit on his motor cycle, took him somewhere, where he was assaulted and killed by the said Raju, the co-accused-Vijay-brother of Raju and the present Applicant, who is the father of Raju and Vijay. BA-448-11.sxw 2 Dixit 4. The initial information was about Manoj having gone only with Raju. In the course of investigation, it was stated by some persons that the Applicant had followed Raju and Manoj. Nothing further could be found to connect the Applicant with the alleged offence. The clothes of the Applicant were seized during the course of investigation, but the Panchanama in respect of the seizure does not indicate that there were any stains of blood on those clothes. The Chemical Analyzer's report in that respect is not received and, therefore, the fact remains that there is nothing to show that the clothes of the Applicant had blood stains on them. 5. My attention has been drawn to the Panchanama dated 21st October, 2010, which purports to be a record of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused- Raju, pursuant to which the weapon of assault was, allegedly, recovered. My attention has been drawn to the inadmissible portion of the statement, purportedly, made by the co-accused-Raju to show that even that portion does not implicate the Applicant. In my opinion, for the purposes of bail, there would be no bar to look into that portion (though inadmissible during the trial) at the instance of the Applicant to show what was the information received by the Investigating Agency, about the role of the present Applicant. 6. Undoubtedly, some previous criminal cases are said to be pending against the Applicant. However, I am informed that in those cases also his son, the said Raju, is one of the accused. 7. The Applicant is in custody since October, 2010. The trial has not yet commenced. The entire family of the Applicant is accused in this case. The said Raju as well as the other son of the Applicant is in custody. 8. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail, subject to certain conditions. BA-448-11.sxw 3 Dixit 9. The Bail Application is allowed. 10. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in like amount, on the condition to report to the Chinchwad Police Station, Dist. Pune, on every Sunday, between 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., till the disposal of the case against him. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]