1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3822 OF 2009 1) Aparna w/o.Dadarao Weldode, Age-22 years, Occupation : Household, R/o.Ghankheda Taluka, Jaferabad, Dist. Jalna 2) Vimalbai w/o.Bhimrao Borde, Age-50 years, Occu : Household, R/o.Pimpalgaon Renukai, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna, 3) Shobhabai D/o.Kundlik Weldode, Age-35 years, Occu : Household, R/o.Ghankheda, Tal. Jaferabad, Dist. Jalna. 4) Ku.Vaishali D/o.Bhimrao Borde, Age-19 years, Occu : Household, R/o.Pimpalgaon Renukai, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. 5) Ku.Deepali D/o.Bhimrao Borde, Age-18 years, Occu : Household, R/o.Pimpalgaon Renukai, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna 6) Babitabai W/o.Ramesh Chauthmal, Age-40 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Yevta, Taluka : Jaferabad Dist. Jalna. PETITIONERS VERSUS 2 The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.K.Barlota, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 17/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed for their release on bail in connection with CR No.52/2009, registered in Jafarabad Police Station of Dist. Jalna for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 323, 504, 506, r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. At the opening of the submissions across the bar, it was made clear to me as well as it is a matter of record that after the earlier application for bail was rejected by my brother judge vide order dated 22/09/2009, liberty was sought to move the Court after filing of the charge sheet and the present application is moved by these applicants after the charge sheet is filed before the Lower Court. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri.A.S.Barlota for applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP Mr.Shaikh appearing for the respondent State. As the notice of this application is already given to the State, papers of investigation/filed in the Lower Court alongwith the charge sheet are produced before me for my perusal. 3 4. Considering the submissions across the bar as well as the papers of investigation, the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses, who have witnessed the incident, the incident took place at 10.30 a.m. of 11/07/2009 in the part of the field Gat No.20 of the complainant and in the same field, the applicant’s family is also claiming their part possession in the said field. This Court is lis concerned about the civil dispute between the complainant as well as the applicants. The incident as discloses in the FIR and supported by the eye witnesses is deceased Dnyandeo was taking the bullock- cart from the field which is alleged to be claimed by the family of the applicants, quarrel took place between Dnyandeo, Vijay Dabhade, Rahul Bhimrao and during that scuffle deceased Dnyandeo sustained serious injuries which resulted in his death. Thereafter, the injured Dnyandeo was taken to his house where he expired in the early morning of the next day i.e. on 12/07/2009. Around 12.05 noon of 12/07/2009, the incident was reported in Jaferabad Police Station and accordingly the FIR was registered. Considering the disclosure as to how the incident is occurred, at that time these applicants were not arrayed about any role played by them in the alleged incident. It appears that thereafter on the same day, supplementary statement of the complainant Ganesh Dnyandeo as well as during the course of investigation statements of the so called eye witnesses were recorded which are the stereo type statements like each other. 5. In the backdrop of these facts revealed during the course of 4 submissions, it is urged that even though the facts disclosed in the supplementary statement recorded of the complainant and the so called alleged eye witnesses even if accepted as it is, those acts have nothing to do with the injuries sustained to that Dnyandeo which ultimately resulted in his death, and if it is so, these applicants can not be held responsible for the death of deceased Dnyandeo which attribute towards an offence punishable u/s. 302 of the IPC. 6. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned APP appearing for the State vehemently oppose the application on the ground that these supplementary statements can not be said to be recorded after thought as these statements were recorded within some hours after the earlier statements were recorded. 7. Considering these statements across the bar and even if accepted, the supplementary statements of the complainant as well as the so called eye witnesses as it is, the fact remain during these supplementary statements not only of the complainant, but of the so called eye witnesses that they are not attributing in fact towards the injuries sustained to the deceased Dnyandeo, by the way their participation on the attack of deceased Dnyandeo and if it is so, the case is made out to enlarge the accused on bail. Hence the application deserves following order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. These applicants be released on bail on furnishing surety in 5 the sum of Rs.10,000/- each and on furnishing the PR bond in the like amount. 3. After their release on bail, the applicants not to contact or temper with the witnesses of prosecution. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3822-09