{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4019 OF 2009 Shridhar s/o Bhivaji Dandekar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.G.Dargad, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 30th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.38/2009 registered with Basamba Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 376 & 302 o the Indian Penal Code. 2. In this case, investigation is already over and charge sheet is filed against the applicant and co-accused. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. {2} 4. It appears that the applicant had filed a missing report of his wife in the night of 28th June 2009. It further appears that in next morning at around 7 a.m. another report came to be submitted in the police station and on the basis of that report an ADR was registered as dead body of the wife of the applicant was recovered from a nearby field. The said ADR i.e. ADR No.11/2009 is registered u/s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It further appears that subsequent of registration of the ADR No.11/2009, an inquest Panchanama was carried out and the body was identified by the present applicant and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem. Thereafter, third report came to be lodged in the police station at about 11.00 p.m. The said report is also lodged by the present applicant and on the basis of this report an offence at CR No.38/2009 u/s 302 r/w 376 of the IPC came to be registered. Papers of investigation disclose that on the very next day i.e. on 1st July 2009, statement of the neighbour of the applicant came to be recorded. The neighbour has disclosed that the day before the deceased was missing, a quarrel took place between the applicant and his wife and then the applicant committed murder of his wife and with the assistance of his brother, co-accused shifted the dead body to a nearby field. On the basis of said statement, the earlier offence registered against unknown persons, came to be registered against the present applicant and the applicant came to be arrested on the very same day and since then he is in jail. {3} 5. During the course of investigation, it appears that the statement of the real brother of the applicant also came to be recorded. The real brother of the applicant has narrated the entire incident as to how the wife of the applicant is killed by the applicant and thereafter, with the help of his another brother, how the dead body was shifted to the nearby field. 6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that since 01.07.2009, the applicant is in jail and now as the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, there is no question of applicant’s tampering of prosecution witnesses and hence he may be released on bail. It is also urged that other than statement of the neighbour, where there is lot of variance and hence the same cannot be believed at this stage, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence and hence the applicant be released on bail. 7. Learned APP opposed the application and draw my attention towards the statements, not only of the neighbour, but also of the witnesses who had stated that how the body was shifted, recorded during the course of investigation and in the premise, it is contended that there is direct nexus between the evidence collected and the role played by the applicant. 8. Though the investigation in the present case is over and the charge sheet is filed, yet it is necessary to consider as to {4} whether there are chances of tampering of witnesses and the gravity of the offence. From the entire episode, it prima facie appears that it is a well planned murder at the hands of the applicant as he himself has murdered his wife and created a situation that the offence was lodged against some unknown persons. In the premise, the applicant does not deserve liberty. 9. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln4019-09