1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1865 OF 2009 Kailash Bhanudas Jate - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.Amol K.Gawali, Advocate for Applicant; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th August 2009. PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel. 2) The applicant/accused in custody from 6.11.2008 prays for bail in Sessions Case No. 8/2008. The Counsel took me to the recovery panchanama, showing that it has been witnessed by Rangnath Kudnar and said Rangnath Kudnar has given statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to some extent mitigating the accused. The Counsel suggested, even the widow of deceased – Suresh has also suspected said Rangnath to be one amongst others to eliminate her husband, as the widow has resorted for her grievance by addressing a report to the Home Minister and other higher authorities. 2 3) The statements of witnesses indicate that the accused/applicant herein was last seen together. They have drinks at the illicit liquor vending shop of Bhausaheb Madane, a creeper in the village. Thereafter, at the material time the deceased had altercation with said Bhausaheb Madane on payment of balance amount of Rs. 20/- as the deceased suspected that such amount was not reimbursed to him. Thereafter, the altercation between the applicant/accused and the deceased continued, as has been stated by Rangnath Kudnar. 4) The wife of the accused has also given indication as to what has happened in the night as to how the accused was under influence of liquor; he missed his torch or bicycle or in what manner on the next day he gave her Rs.50/- for religious function. 5) The brutality, with which the deceased is done to death is indicated in the postmortem notes. At this stage, it may not be that accused – Kailas alone was responsible, however, the fact remains, that the seizure panchanama of his apparels prima facie indicate some bloodstains and signs of altercations as the buttons were loose and even misplaced. 6) Learned APP informs, CA report is awaited. 7) Taking these aspects into consideration, 3 though the accused herein is in custody from 6.11.2008, however, for that purpose alone, he cannot seek bail. The circumstances prima facie indicate his role. Consequently, bail application rejected. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran1865.09