1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.319 of 2010 [Neema S. Jadhav & ors. Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.J. Khandalkar, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 22nd March, 2010. 1. The applicants, who are amongst in all nine accused persons, are praying for grant of regular bail. 2. The applicants have been charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 147, 149, 354, 294, 506 and 302 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 156/09 registered at Police Station, Mangrulpir. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused persons administered poison to the deceased. 4. Admittedly, there are cross-cases. 2 5. The bail is prayed on following grounds:- [a] That, the report of offence was made after three days. [b] That, there are eye- witnesses to commission of suicide by deceased by consuming poison herself. [c] The persons cited as eye- witnesses and making statements against the accused persons belong to the family of husband of the deceased - the complainant, and, therefore, interested witnesses. 6. According to the applicants, a plain case of suicide has been painted to be that of murder and due to the rivalary between two groups, the accused persons have been falsely involved in the offence. 7. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.J. Khandalkar for the applicants and learned APP Mr. V.A. Thakre for the respondent-State. Perused the documents filed along with the charge-sheet. 8. It cannot be, and is not disputed that there are eye-witnesses, including the complainant, who have named the accused persons having committed the acts of catching hold, 3 overpowering and then administering the victim the poison. 9. As argued by the learned Adv., for the applicants, it is a case where on one hand, there are eye-witnesses who support the prosecution case, and, on the other, there are witnesses who do not support the case. 10. In this situation, as this Court finds, this Court is not sitting in trial and adjudicate upon the truth of the matter. 11. What this Court is scrutinizing is all what reveals from the case papers, on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been filed – whether prima facie there is a case against the accused persons. 12. Few witnesses, who support the accused persons, do not, at his stage, vouch for the accused as final word. They may, if be necessary, even be the witnesses of the defence. 13. However, at this stage, what appears prima facie is that there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons to substantiate the imputations – charge – subject-matter at this stage. In this background, therefore, there is adequate material to show that the accused persons are involved in the commission of the offence. 4 14. In these premises, the accused do not stand a chance for bail. 17. Application is, therefore, rejected. Judge |Hedau|