1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No.4213 of 2010 Uttam s/o Karbhari Wagh ... applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... respondent ------ Shri R.V .Gore, Advocate, for the applicant-accused. Shri D. V. Tele, A. P. P. for the Respondent -State. Shri Amol S. Gandhi, Adv.. for original complainant. Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : November 24, 2010 P. C. 1. Heard Shri R.V.Gore, learned Advocate, for the applicant, Shri D.V.Tele, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State, as well as Shri Amol S. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the original complainant. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, namely, Uttam s/o Karbhari Wagh, for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.290 of 2008 registered at Taluka Police Station, Jalna, Dist. Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 302,201,120 (B), 363 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(2(v) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2 3. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that the applicant herein had earlier preferred application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge and same was dismissed on 23.2.2010. Thereafter the applicant approached this court by filing criminal application No.943 of 2010, but same was dismissed by order dated 19.3.2010. Moreover, the applicant herein had also preferred further application for anticipatory bail bearing No. CMP (B) 381 of 2010 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, and same also came to be rejected on 26.5.2010. Further, the applicant preferred Criminal Application No.2217 of 2010, seeking anticipatory bail before this court, but after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, learned counsel for the applicant withdrew the said application, on 15.7.2010. The charge sheet came to be filed by the investigating agency under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the accused persons, excepting the applicant herein, since he was absconding. 4. On this background, learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that even accepting the charge-sheet as it is, there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant, except disclosure of name of the applicant in the supplementary statements of the complainant, namely, Govind Ambadas Pakhare, recorded on 9.3.2009, 13.6.2009, 5.2.2010 and 9.7.2010. Moreover, it is also submitted that even in the disclosure made by the main accused Punjaram Wagh on 21.4.2010, under Section 27 of Evidence Act, the name of the present applicant is 3 not reflected. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet also discloses that only two calls were made by the applicant on 30.11.2009 from his mobile. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant urged that there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant and, therefore, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. Shri D.V. Tele, learned A.P.P. and Shri Amol. S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the original complainant countered the said arguments vehemently and submitted that apart from the supplementary statements of the complainant, namely, Govind Ambadas Pakhare, recorded on 9.3.2009, 13.6.2009, 5.2.2010 and 9.7.2010 wherein name of the applicant has been reflected as one of the culprits, the investigating agency has also recorded statements of other witnesses, namely, Punjaram Pakhare and Ganesh Kamble on 7.5.2010, as well as of Walmik Lahane on 9.7.2010, wherein they have stated that on 30.11.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. the applicant herein and co-accused Shivaji Malhari Wagh arrived in front of Shivneri Dhaba from Gondegaon Phata on motorcycle and parked it there and further proceeded towards the house of main accused Punjaram Karbhari Wagh, through a lane. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the original complainant submitted that the said statements are incriminating against the applicant since missing complaint came to be filed on the very day i.e. 30.11.2008 in respect of deceased Kailash. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the original complainant further 4 canvassed that the applicant is involved in the alleged offence and his custodial interrogation is, therefore, necessary for further progress in the investigation in respect of the role of the applicant in the alleged offence, more particularly considering offence under Section 120 (B) and Section 34 of I.P.C. which have been applied in the present case and hence, urged that the present application be rejected. 6. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, and after perusal of the investigation papers and the statements of the above referred witnesses, as well as the order passed by this court on 19.3.2010 rejecting earlier application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant herein, it is apparent that the prosecution case is rested on the circumstantial evidence. Moreover, considering the supplementary statement of the complainant, namely, Govind Ambadas Pakhare, recorded on 9.3.2009, 13.6.2009, 5.2.2010 and 9.7.2010 wherein name of the present applicant has been reflected as one of the perpetrators to the crime and also considering the statements of other witnesses, namely, Punjaram Pakhare and Ganesh Kamble on 7.5.2010, as well as of Walmik Lahane on 9.7.2010, wherein overt-act of the applicant herein has been mentioned and his specific role has been reflected in the alleged offence on 30.11.2008 which is the very date of lodging of missing complaint in respect of deceased Kailash, I am of the view that apparently, there is prima facie case against the applicant herein. Besides, considering the nature 5 and gravity of the offence, I am also of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further progress in the investigation in constructive manner in respect of the role of the applicant in the alleged offence . 7. Accordingly, having comprehensive view of the matter, it does not appear that there is false implication of the present application in the alleged offence and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 8. In the result, applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail and resultantly, present application stands dismissed. 9. It is made clear that the above observations are prima facie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on its merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) pnd/criap4213.10