1 APPLN 3145 OF 2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3145 OF 2010. Ashok Shankar Mhatre .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. V.R. Raje, for the Applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 21st October, 2010 P.C. 1. This is an application for bail by applicant who has been chargesheeted for murder of Kantabai @ Laxmi Santosh Babar. The first information report did not name the applicant as also victim because the victim was not also identified and FIR was registered against unknown person. The clothes of the applicant were seized in the course of investigation. The shirt of the applicant is shown to have stains of blood group B which was also blood group found on the victim’s clothes which were seized. The applicant’s blood group is A. In view of this it cannot be said that the applicant has been un- necessarily chargesheeted or therefore, he is entitled to be bailed out. Therefore, the application is rejected. 2 APPLN 3145 OF 2010.sxw 2. This application, however, brought to the fore extremely disturbing circumstances. When the matter came up for hearing, first on 17th September, 2010, at the request of learned APP, it was adjourned to 28th September, 2010 to secure CA Report from Forensic Science Laboratory. On 28th September, 2010, learned APP again stated that the reports from the Laboratory were not available and the officer who was present in the Court, instructed that the laboratory was not in a position to state as to when the reports would be available. Therefore, on 28th September, 2010 the Director of the Laboratory, was directed to state by which date the samples in these case would be analysed and the reports would be made available for the perusal of this Court. The matter then appeared on 8.10.2010. Even then the reports were not made available. Therefore, Registry of this Court, was directed to write a letter to the Director seeking clarification as to why it cannot give probable date on which reports of analysis would be made available. The Director’s reply dated 14.10.2010, clarifying that the samples in this case had been analysed and reports had been dispatched on 7th July,2010. Thus, the Officer who had instructed learned APP was obviously not telling the truth. The Home Department may therefore enquire as to whether the reports were received by the concerned officer and if the officer is guilty or the reports were not in fact sent and someone in the Laoratory passed 3 APPLN 3145 OF 2010.sxw on false information and deal with the guilty appropriately and report back to this Court. 3. The Registry of this Court to communicate this order to the Home Secretary as well as to the Commissioner of Police, Thane. 4. Application is disposed of. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)