1 cri3636.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3636 OF 2011 1. Ramdas Bhanudas Tayade 2. Pandurang Uttam Tayade ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for applicants. Mr. D.R. Korde, APP for respondent. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 7th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose and heard the learned counsel for the respective parties finally. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant no. 1-Ramdas Bhanudas Tayade, and applicant no.2-Pandurang Uttam Tayade, seeking regular bail, in connection with C.R. No. 387 of 2010, registered at Taluka Jalna Police Station, Dist. Jalna, for the offences 2 cri3636.11 punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by complainant namely; Sheetal Rajesh Lihinar on 25.12.2010 in respect of the occurrence of the incident on the same day at about 6 a.m. Accordingly, the applicants came to be arrested under the said C.R. on 26.12.2010 and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed on 18.03.2011. 4. It appears that in the said occurrence of the incident, the victim deceased Subhash sustained injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries on 25.12.2010 and the complainant's husband Rajesh was injured in the said occurrence of the incident. In the said context, the learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that although there are allegations against the applicant nos. 1 and 2 herein in the F.I.R. that they assaulted by sticks on the head, hands and legs of deceased Subhash and also caused injuries to the husband of complainant, namely Rajesh, 3 cri3636.11 the other eye witnesses namely; Chandrabhagabai Lihinar, Suresh Tayade, injured Rajesh Lihinar made distinction in their respective statements in respect of the assault. The learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that the statement of Chandrabhagabai Lihinar discloses that applicant no.1-Ramdas assaulted the victim deceased Subhash by stick along with other co-accused. Whereas, applicant no.2-Pandurang assaulted the injured person Rajesh by sticks along with co-accused. Moreover, the statement of Rajesh Lihinar reflects that applicant no.1-Ramdas assaulted deceased Subhash by sticks along with co-accused, whereas, the applicant no.2 Pandurang assaulted Rajesh himself by way of stick along with co-accused. So also, the statement of Suresh Tayade attributed the same role to the applicant nos. 1 and 2 that the applicant no.1-Ramdas assaulted the deceased Subhash by stick along with co-accused, whereas, the accused no.2-Pandurang assaulted injured Ramdas by stick along with co-accused. 5. In short, although the F.I.R. reflects the names of applicant nos. 1 and 2 and attributes the role to 4 cri3636.11 them that they have assaulted the deceased Subhash and injured Rajesh, the statements of the aforesaid eye witnesses make distinction and they focus on applicant no.1-Ramdas and attribute the role to him that he assaulted deceased Subhash by sticks along with co- accused; whereas, the applicant no.2-Pandurang assaulted to injured Rajesh by sticks along with co- accused, and therefore, there is substance in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants. 6. Admittedly, the injured Rajesh sustained simple injuries in the nature of four contusions and an abrasion. He sustained one compound injury on leg which is grievous injury. Whereas, the postmortem report of deceased Subhash discloses that he sustained as many as 8 injuries out of which injury nos. 1 and 2 are on parietal region and on hand and leg and the cause of death discloses, the death due to head injury with multiple injuries, and apparently, it appears that there is nexus between injury caused by applicant no.1-Ramdas to deceased Subhash by stick along with co-accused and the death of the victim Subhash. 5 cri3636.11 7. The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that there is strong prima facie case against applicant no.1-Ramdas, and hence, his bail application deserves to be rejected. Whereas, role of the applicant no.2-Pandurang is apparently of lesser degree in occurrence of the incident. The aspect of the application of Section 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and repercussion thereof can be seen at the time of trial, and therefore, the applicant no.2 is entitled to be released on bail, but on certain stringent conditions. 8. In the result, the present application is partly allowed and it is directed that the applicant no.2- Pandurang Uttam Tayade, be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, on the following conditions :- (i) The applicant no.2-Pandurang shall reside outside the village Sindkhed (Pokharni), Tq. 6 cri3636.11 & Dist. Jalna, till the conclusion of trial and shall inform his changed address of residence to the concerned Investigator, forthwith. (ii) The applicant no.2-Pandurang shall not influence upon witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 9. The application of applicant no.1-Ramdas Bhanudas Tayade stands dismissed. 10. The present application stands disposed of finally. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE ga s/cri3636.11