1 Criminal Application No.5252/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5252 OF 2010 Gangasagar s/o Ramesh @ Ramakant Biradar ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri V.R. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri S.B. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Shri V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent Shri R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for original complainant permitted to assist the A.P.P. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5th January, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Shri R.B. Deshmukh tendered application on behalf of the complainant Jagannath s/o Ramesh @ Ramakant Biradar seeking permission to grant leave to assist the public prosecutor. Permitted. The application is allowed to the extent as above. 2. Heard. A controversy over partition of agricultural property by the accused/ applicant Gangasagar with his parents, it is alleged that, the accused/ applicant Gangasagar called his brother Praksh on phone. The mobile numbers are given in the report itself. Pursuant to such phone call, the complainant Biradar Ramesh with his brother Prakash 2 Criminal Application No.5252/2010 went on a motorcycle to Lohara at Bus Stand where the accused/ applicant joined them as a pillion rider. He was holding a bag. He directed his brother Prakash to move from the side of agricultural field. No sooner they reached near the agricultural field, it is alleged that the accused/ applicant urged his brother to stop the vehicle since he desired water. Consequent upon such plea, the three brothers went near the borewell where in the exercise of pretence of water, the accused/ applicant suddenly removed a deadly weapon, called by the complainant as a dagger (Khanjir) and inflicted severe injuries at the neck, chest and several other vital parts of the body. Since the gruesome incident could not be borne further by the complainant, he rushed under threat of his life to village to call his parents. Dead body of Prakash was in the meantime thrown in the well. The narration of the complainant of accused inflicting several injuries are reflected in the post mortem notes, which in material terms, match to his narration. The phone calls are also matching to each other. 3. The learned counsel submits that the accused is in custody from 9.5.2010. charge sheet is filed on 8.7.2010 and nothing is to be recovered and hence, warrants release of the accused on condition. 4. Though these submissions of the learned counsel are befitting to the interest of the accused/ applicant, however, the manner in which the gruesome incident has taken place, has sent its signals in the vicinity. The life of the complainant and even the parents is at peril and 3 Criminal Application No.5252/2010 release of the accused/ applicant would even endanger them of precious life. That apart, the influence the accused could exercise with others also cannot be mitigated. 5. Taking survey of the matter, I find that this is not a fit case where the accused is entitled to enjoy liberty. The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the application on 12.11.2010, has directed expeditious hearing of Sessions Case No.53/2010. In the light of the above, the application is rejected. 6. The observations are restricted to the extent of present application, need not be borne while appreciating the evidence. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri5252.10