1 cri3894.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3894 OF 2011 1. Manoj Bhimrao More 2. Jagdish Bhimrao More ..Applicants -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Mr. S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for applicant nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Korde, APP for respondent ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 26th 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 the applicant nos.1 and 2 seeking regular bail, in connection with C.R. No. I-168/2011, registered at Kopargaon Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on 2 cri3894.11 the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant namely; Sau. Ranjana Pavashya Chavan i.e. sister of the victim namely; Bhurya on 27th May, 2011. Apparently, three mobile numbers have been referred in the contents of the complaint i.e. Mobile Nos. 9730727672, 9881950901 and 9823304523, by which the complainant received telephone calls on her mobile no. 9850925327. The investigating agency has sent the letters to the concerned nodal Officers seeking particulars of the said three mobile numbers and received the information that Mob. no. 9730727672 belongs to one Arun Nannavare, Mob. no. 9881950901 belongs to Pramod Bagad and Mob. no. 9823304523 pertains to Madhav Aher. 4. During the course of investigation, the statements of the said three witnesses have been recorded. On perusal of the contents of the statement of witness namely; Arun Nannavare, it appears that on 26.05.2011 at about 4 a.m., he heard the shouts of the people in the lane outside the house that "Chor-Chor" and thereby he woke up and came out of the house at about 4.30 a.m. and since a mob of people had gathered 3 cri3894.11 infront of Nagar Palika School, he had taken his mobile phone and put it into his pocket, while leaving the home and on reaching there, he found that applicant no.1-Manoj Bhimrao More and applicant no.2- Jagdish Bhimrao More had caught hold of one thief and both of them were demanding stolen Mangalsutra and two mobile phones and they were assaulting him by Bambu (Kathi) and his name was disclosed as Bhurya Dagadu Bhosale i.e. victim herein. The said person stated that he was not thief and he has not stolen anything and asked the applicants to confirm the same by making telephone call to his sister namely; Ranjana i.e. complainant herein on her mobile bearing no. 9850925327. Thereupon, applicant no.1-Manoj Bhimrao More requested said witness Arun Nannavare to give his mobile. Moreover, the people gathered there also requested the applicant nos. 1 and 2 herein not to assault the said victim. The said statement also recites that since Manoj More was residing in the same lane, the said witness Arun Nannavare gave his mobile sympathetically. Thereafter, applicant no.1-Manoj More rang up to sister of victim i.e. complainant and asked her whether, Bhurya Bhosale related to her stating 4 cri3894.11 that he had stolen two mobiles and his mother's Mangalsutra and asked to return the same, otherwise, threatened her that he would kill the victim. Thereupon, the said witness Arun Nannavare asked the applicant no.1 not to use such language on his mobile since his number must have been reflected on the phone of other side i.e. complainant's phone and asked the applicant no.1 to return his mobile immediately. Thus, the said witnesses Arun Nannavare took his mobile from applicant no.1 and went to his home. The said statement further illustrates that on the same day, at about 11 a.m. he noticed that the said victim was lying in Gutter in supine position near water tank and two sweepers of Municipal Council removed him and on seeing him the said witness identified the said victim to whom the applicant nos. 1 and 2 assaulted in the morning on the same day. 5. Moreover, the statement of another witness namely Pramod Bagad discloses that on 26.05.2011 at about 6.45 a.m. he heard the noise of people and shouts as "Chor-Chor" and thereby he woke up and shifted the mobile phone to his pocket and came out of the house 5 cri3894.11 and found that a mob had gathered infront of Municipal School. He also stated that the applicant no.1-Manoj More and applicant no.2-Jagdish More, resident of Laxminagar had caught hold of one person and both of them were demanding stolen Mangalsutra and two mobiles from him. Applicant nos. 1 and 2 also assaulted the said person by Bambu (Kathi) and the said person's name was disclosed as Bhurya Dagdu Bhosale i.e. the victim and he had stated that he had not stolen anything and asked the applicants to confirm the same by making telephone to his sister namely Ranjana on her mobile no. 9850925327. Moreover, the people in the said mob had also asked the applicants not to assault the said victim and confirm whether he had stolen anything. Accordingly, the applicant no.1 asked the mobile phone of Pramod Bagad and thereupon since the applicant no.1 Manoj More was resident of same lane, he handed over his mobile bearing no. 9881950901 to him. At that juncture, his friend Madhavrao Sahebrao Aher gave him call, who was standing nearby the said witness, went there and returned back within a short time and took his mobile from applicant no.1-Manoj More. Thereafter, the said statement recites that on 6 cri3894.11 26.05.2011 at about 9 a.m. when he was going to his college by walk, he received a telephone of one woman on his mobile asking him whether he was More and whether he had caught hold of his brother Bhurya. Thereupon, the said witness replied that he was not More and Manoj More had rung up on his mobile phone in the morning and asked her, if she wanted to speak More, she should ring up on mobile belonging to Madhavrao Aher bearing mobile no. 9823304523. Thereafter, he switched off his mobile phone. The said statement also illustrates that at about 1 p.m. when he returned after completion of examination, he found a body of person lying in a Gutter near water tank and same was removed from the Gutter by the Sweepers of Municipal Council and on seeing it, he noticed that it was the body of Bhurya Dagadu Bhosale i.e. victim to whom the applicants had assaulted in the morning on the same day. 6. Besides, the statement of Madhavrao Aher also reflects that on 26.05.2011 at about 6.45 a.m. he heard the noise of people outside his house and shouts of "Chor-Chor" and thereafter he woke up and came out 7 cri3894.11 of the house and found that there is a mob of people infront of Nagar Palika School and the applicant nos. 1 and 2, resident of Laxminagar caught hold of one person and both were demanding stolen Mangalsutra and two mobile phones from him and were assaulting him by Bamboo (Kathi). The name of the said victim was Bhurya Dagadu Bhosale and he was stating that he was not thief and he had not stolen anything and asked the applicants to confirm the same by making telephone call to his sister namely; Ranjana. Moreover, the people gathered around there also requested the applicants not to assault the said victim. The statement of Mahdavrao Aher also recites that since he was not feeling well, he came out of the mob and went to his home and took rest. Thereafter, he woke up at 8 a.m. and after taking bath went to his job at about 9.30 a.m. Thereafter, he received telephone call on his mobile from mobile number 9850925327 and one lady spoke to him on the said mobile and asked him whether he was More and asked him to collect his articles coming at Bet Naka where they waited. The said statement further discloses that the said lady called for five times, but the said witness stated that he 8 cri3894.11 was not More and further stated that he would give message to More and thereafter switched of his mobile. The said statement also further discloses that the said witness Madhavrao Aher went to applicant no.1- Manoj More and gave message of said lady and asked him to go to Bet Naka to collect the articles. The said statement also further reflects that the person caught hold of by applicants was relieved and he was demanding water frequently and he was unable to wake up. The said statement further discloses that at about 11 a.m. the said witness noticed that the victim was lying in Gutter in supine position and two Sweepers removed him therefrom. He further found that said person was the victim to whom the applicant nos. 1 and 2 have assaulted in the morning on the same day. 7. Moreover, the statement of two Sweepers i.e. Sntosh Dake and Sanjay Jagdhane are also in tune with the aforesaid statements and they stated that they removed the dead body of the victim Bhurya Bhosale from the Gutter with the help of each other. Thus, the aforesaid statements of the witnesses are apparently, incriminating against the applicant nos. 1 9 cri3894.11 and 2 herein, which connect them with the alleged crime. 8. Moreover, it is also significant to note that the wooden bar allegedly used by the applicants to assault the victim Bhurya was also recovered at the instance of the applicant no.1 under discovery panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the postmortem report also discloses the cause of death of victim that, probable cause of death is due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to drowning, which is in consonance with the statements of two Sweepers and other witnesses as aforesaid. 9. In the circumstances, the complicity of the applicant nos. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid crime is apparent and hence, although the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, they do not deserve to be released on bail and therefore, the present Application deserves to be rejected. At this juncture, learned Advocate for applicant requested to expedite the hearing trial,and the said request deserves to be acceded with in the 10 cri3894.11 interest of justice. 10. In the result, the present application which sans merits, stands dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the hearing of the trial of the concerned case. 11. It is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. 12. The present Criminal Application stands disposed of finally. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE ga s/cri3894.11