1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1329 OF 2010 Nilesh s/o Gopaldas Agrawal ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the applicant Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 22nd April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. V.D. Gunale, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant herein seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest under C.R. No. 1/2010, registered at Jalgaon Taluka Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120- B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It is alleged that, on 3.1.2010, one dead body of unknown person in burnt condition was found by Pujari of Avachit Hanuman Temple, Ridhur, Taluka Jalgaon, at a distance of one furlong from the said temple in one Chari and the said dead body was in almost burnt condition. Accordingly, on the report of the said Pujari, the police personnel of Taluka Police Station, Jalgaon, registered A.D. under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, enquiry was made by the A.S.I. Dattatraya Raibhan Patil, who visited the spot and conducted the spot panchanama. 4. Thereafter, said A.S.I. Dattatraya Raibhan Patil lodged a report and offence came to be registered on 3.1.2010. It was revealed that the said dead body was of Dnyaneshwar Koli. During the course of investigation, it was transpired that co-accused Manisha had married with deceased Dnyaneshwar about eight years back and the said couple was blessed with daughter namely Nayana i.e. six years, however, the relations between deceased Dnyaneshwar and Manisha were strained since Dnyaneshwar used to suspect her fidelity. It is alleged that, the applicant herein is the paramour of said Manisha and they were having illicit relations with each other. It is further revealed that, since deceased 3 Dnyaneshwar was harassing Manisha, divorce took place between them, but Manisha had apprehension that deceased Dnyaneshwar would take back their daughter and she expressed her said apprehension before applicant Nilesh, who assured her to extend all help to finish Dnyaneshwar. 5. It is further alleged that, on 29.12.2009, Manisha, applicant and other co-accused hatched conspiracy to commit murder of Dnyaneshwar since deceased Dnyaneshwar had created nuisance at the house of Manisha and had threatened her to take his daughter to his house and also demanded money from Manisha on the said date. Accordingly, it is alleged that, as per plan and conspiracy, Manisha called deceased Dnyaneshwar to her house in the evening and Dnyaneshwar also arrived at her house at about 8.30 p.m. along with his friend co-accused Sanjay. It is also alleged that, Manisha offered him liquor and sleeping pills were mixed therein and after consuming liquor, Dnyaneshwar became unconscious. Thereafter, Manisha made telephone call to the applicant and called him to the house with vehicle. However, he could not reach in time and, therefore, all the other co-accused including Manisha carried Dnyaneshwar towards Avachit Hanuman Mandir of village Ridhur in autorickshaw along with cans filled with petrol and kerosene and poured kerosene and petrol on the person 4 of Dnyaneshwar and set him on fire alive at the said place. 6. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that, the applicant is a businessman and not concerned with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that, co-accused Manisha and one more accused have been released on bail. It is also urged that, the entire case of prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to link the chain of the said circumstances. It is also pointed out that, the remand yadi dated 13.1.2010 reflects the name of the applicant for the first time and his name has not been figured in the alleged F.I.R. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the two cans of petrol/ kerosene have been recovered. Moreover, it is also submitted that the telephone call details of the cellular phone of the applicant have been collected and it appears that, there are numerous outgoing and incoming calls on the cell phone of the applicant on the relevant date i.e. 29.12.2009 and on the next day i.e. 30.12.2009. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that the offence is of serious 5 nature and apparently, there is no false implication of the applicant and, therefore, his application be rejected. 8. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, it is apparent that firstly A.D. No. 1/2010 was registered when the dead body in almost burnt condition was found and thereafter the offence came to be registered on 3.1.2010 and the investigation was started, wherein it was transpired that applicant was involved in the offence and, therefore, the remand yadi dated 13.1.2010 reflects the name of the applicant herein as one of the accused persons. The applicant was not available for the investigation purpose since allegedly he was absconding. Admittedly, the offence is heinous and is of serious nature and there are categorical allegations against the applicant that he hatched the plan/ conspiracy to eliminate Dnyaneshwar, along with co-accused and more particularly his paramour namely Manisha. Moreover, it also appears that, there are numerous outgoing and incoming calls on the cellular phone of the applicant on the particular day i.e. 29.12.2009 and on the next day i.e. 30.12.2009. Moreover, the post mortem notes disclose that victim sustained 100% burns. Apparently, it appears that, there is no false implication of the applicant in the present crime 6 and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the further progress of the investigation in proper perspective and, therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same stands dismissed. 10. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri1329.10