IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 214 of 2010 Govind v. State of Maharashtra ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr A.S. Mardikar, Adv for applicant Mr S.B. Ahirkar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 26th February 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 190/2009 registered with Police Station, Risod for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a businessman and he had no animosity with deceased who was working as an agent for Ashok Trading. He submits that prosecution has not placed any material on record indicating quarrel or disputes between applicant and deceased. 3. As against this, learned APP submits that accusations are serious in nature. According to him, circumstantial evidence indicates that applicant is very much responsible to eliminate deceased with whom he had dinner on earlier night and on the next day dead body of deceased was found 22 kms away from village Shirpur. He submits that there is data collected by the investigating agency which establishes talks between the two on cell phone. Learned APP submits that the investigating agency proposes to carry out narco-analysis test, but because applicant has filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 72 of 2010 before this Court, the said test could not be carried out. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in the alternative, fairly submits that applicant is ready for custodial interrogation for another four days to enable the investigating agency to collect evidence, if any. He has pressed into service ruling of the Apex Court in Abdul Hamit Ansari v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 1505 where the Apex Court had directed the applicant therein to surrender before the police and after completion of custodial interrogation expeditiously applicant was ordered to be released on bail on certain conditions. Since the applicant was already in police custody for ten days, in my opinion, proposal made by learned counsel for applicant is just, fair and proper. Hence, the following order. 5. Investigating Officer is permitted to obtain appropriate remand order from the Court concerned to obtain police custody of the applicant for the purpose of custodial interrogation. Investigating Officer shall complete custodial interrogation of the applicant within four days from the date of remand order. Learned APP to communicate copy of this order to the concerned Investigating Officer. Learned APP undertakes that appropriate steps would be taken on 2nd March 2010. After completion of four days, applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall not try to tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner. He will not communicate with any of the prosecution witnesses and shall attend Investigating Officer as and when called till filing of the charge-sheet. After filing of charge-sheet, applicant shall attend the trial on each date of hearing unless specifically exempted by the Court concerned. Applicant shall leave his fixed address along with telephone/cell phone number (if any) with the Investigating officer and shall inform change therein, if any, in future. Liberty to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case applicant is found violating any of the bail conditions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Hamdast granted. Judge. Hsj