(1) Cri. Application No. 3409 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3409 of 2011 Prakash s/o. Sakharam Mahajan, Aged : 45 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Tapi Colony, Vasant Vihar, Bhusawal, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Dondaicha Police Station, Taluka : Sindkheda, District : Dhule. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. M.S. Sonawane, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent / State. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 (2) Cri. Application No. 3409 of 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. M.S. Sonawane, learned Counsel for the applicant, has moved for speaking to minutes by precipie, contending that this Court has passed order on 16th September 2011, and thereby disposed of the present Application, and also contending that in para 4 of the order, it is observed that the charge sheet came to be filed on 28-3-2011, and further contending that thereafter in para 10 and para 19 of the said order, this Court has observed that the further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is under progress. It is further stated that factually the investigation in respect of the applicant in the present application stands concluded and charge sheet came to be filed on 28-3-2011, and further observations in para 10 and para 19 are only in respect of other two accused, namely, Ashok Sitaram Ingale and Dr. Pranil Padhyar. It is further stated that, it appears that the said fact in respect of further investigation of other accused is not reflected in the said order, and hence, for the said purpose, the applicant has moved the matter for speaking to minutes. 3. Mr. B.V. Wagh, learned APP, for the respondent / (3) Cri. Application No. 3409 of 2011 State, has contended that while making submissions in respect of the said application, he had made the submission that the further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is under progress, and apprehension was posed that if the applicant is released on bail, there is possibility that he would tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon witnesses, since earlier the applicant had done so, and stated that the said submission was made on the basis of the report tendered by the investigating agency on 8-8-2011. 4. Moreover, Mr. B.V. Wagh, learned APP, has made a statement on the basis of the report dated 17-11-2011, from the investigating agency, that the investigation, under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is still under progress in respect of the said crime. 5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the submission made by learned APP on the basis of report was recorded at the end of para 10, as under : " Learned APP also submitted that the further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is under progress, and apprehension is posed by the learned APP, that if the applicant is released on bail, there is (4) Cri. Application No. 3409 of 2011 possibility that he would tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon witnesses, since earlier the applicant has done so." 6. Basing upon the said submission, following observations were made in para 19 of the order dated16th September 2011 : " Besides, other important aspect pointed out by learned APP, that the further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure is still under progress cannot be lost sight of. Moreover, the apprehension posed by the investigating agency, that there is possibility of tampering of evidence and/or influencing upon thje witnesses if the applicant is released on bail, as earlier also it happened, cannot be ignored." 7. Accordingly, it is apparent that the observations made in the order dated 16th September 2011, in para 19, are based upon the submissions made by the learned APP, which are recorded in para 10 of the order dated 16th September 2011. Moreover, the learned APP, basing upon the report dated 17-11-2011, further maintained that the further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is under progress in respect of the concerned crime, which is self-explicit. (5) Cri. Application No. 3409 of 2011 8. Hence, in view of the said position, there is no question of speaking to the minutes as sought by the learned Counsel for the applicant, and the motion is rejected accordingly. 9. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order duly certified by Court Shirastedar. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/criappn3409