IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2972 OF 2009 Shivaji Vithal Pandhare Mahadeo Vithal Pandhare, Mahadeo Savalaram Sarvade Shivaji Prabhakar Sarvade.. ........ Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi i/b. V.V. Purwant adv. for the Applicant Mr. J.P. Yagnik APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 7th August, 2009. P. C.: 1. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the present applicants. This application is filed by original accused nos. 1 to 4. The complaint is filed by one Dadasaheb Yeshwant Kantode the brother of the deceased. The deceased by name Ramhari and the complainant along with other family members were residing in the joint family. They were having 60 acres of agricultural land, out of which 12 acres which was in sugar cane cultivation is situated at Parewadi. On 30-5-2009 at about 10.30 p.m. the deceased had gone to the agricultural field at Parewadi for agricultural activity on motor cycle. On the next day morning by about 2.30 a.m. the wife of the deceased had woken up the complainant and informed him that as yet the deceased 1 had not returned from the field and hence the family members of the deceased had set out to the agricultural field in search of the deceased. However he was not found then. On the next day i.e. on 31-5-2009 at about 6 a.m. Ramhari was found dead in the agricultural filed. The complainant and others examined the body of the deceased and they found injuries on the head, chest and stomach of the deceased. They noticed a stone lying near the dead body stained with blood and hence suspected that he was murdered. In the FIR names of the present applicants are mentioned. The complainant had named the applicants as he suspected that the applicants had committed the offence on account of an earlier incident that had taken place in the year 2005. In the year 2005 the present applicants are stated to have carried an impression that Ramhari the deceased had informed the MSEB officials to reduce the supply of electricity to Parewadi and thus had a grudge against the deceased. For that reason the present applicants had assaulted Ramhari then. The above referred incident is stated in the complaint and on account of the suspicion expressed by the complainant against the present applicants, they came to be arrested on 31-5-2009 and since then they are in custody. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that barring the only circumstance in relation to the incident that had taken place in the year 2005, there is no evidence and/or circumstance which could connect the applicant with the offence. In his submission, by passage of four years time the nexus between the incident of 2005 has lost the relevance and 2 the suspicion expressed in the complaint is far fetched and wholly untenable. It is then submitted that the investigation is complete and no material has been found against the applicant. As such a prayer for release of the applicant on bail is pressed in service. The next limb of the submission of the learned counsel is that one more person viz. accused no.5 was also arrested. There were some suspicious circumstances present against the said accused and the said circumstances were in regard to receipt of mobile phone calls by the accused no.5 from the relatives of the deceased and he had deleted those calls from his mobile. One more circumstance was that the dog scod which was used for tracking the offenders had gone near the vasti of accused no.5. Despite these two circumstances, the said accused has been released on bail, whereas the application filed by the present applicants before the Sessions court has been rejected. The submission is that the accused against whom some material was available has been released on bail. It is then submitted that the said accused no.5 had refused to submit himself to the Narco test whereas the applicants have offered themselves for Narco test. It is thus contended that having regard to the conduct of the present applicants, vis-a-vis accused no.5 the applicant’s case stands on a better footing. 2. The learned APP on instructions from the investigating officer candidly admit that the investigation is over except that the applicants remained to be subjected to Narco test for undergoing which they have agreed. It is his submission that on account of pressure of work, the applicant’s Narco test cannot be conducted in 3 near future. He is even unable to spell out the possible time it would require to do that. Be that as it may, it is not disputed by the prosecution that barring the circumstance of the earlier quarrel in the year 2005 wherein the present applicants are said to have assaulted the deceased, there is no other material circumstance or evidence that could incriminate the present applicants in the crime. The learned counsel for the applicants has re-iterated the applicant’s willingness to offer themselves to undergo the Narco test as and when the prosecution fixes the date for that purpose. It is categorically stated that the applicant shall co-operate the investigation and would attend the Narco test as and when scheduled. 2. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for release of the accused on bail. In the result, it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall attend Karmala police station Dist. Solapur once a week on every Saturday between 4 to 6 p.m. in C.R. No. 136/2009 of Karmala police station for offences under section 302 read with section 34 IPC till filing of charge sheet. The applicant shall abide by the conditions stipulated under section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. The application is disposed of. (A.P.DESHPANDE, J.) 4