1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.704 OF 2010 1. Deepak Hiralal Mewani 2. Madhav @ Mahadu Babruvan Mule : Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent .... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2010 In CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.704 OF 2010 1. Deepak Hiralal Mewani 2. Madhav @ Mahadu Babruvan Mule : Applicants (Orig. Accused) V/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent And Mr.Hiranand @ Dabbu Kimmatram Aswani : Intervener Applicant (Orig. Complainant) .... Mr.A.P.Mundargi i/b. Mr.S.V. Kotwal for the applicants. Mr.S.A.Shaikh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr.H. Ghadigaonkar with Mr.Sanjay Mishra for intervenor/applicant in Cri. Application No.103/2010. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 10, 2010. 2 P.C.: Criminal Application No.103 of 2010 for intervention is allowed. 2. Criminal Application No.704 of 2010 is for grant of bail. 3. The applicants have been arrested in connection with C.R. No. 39/2010 for the offence punishable under sections 115 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. F.I.R. is registered at the behest of one Hiranand @ Dabbu Kimmatram Aswani alleging that the present applicant no.1 had a grudge against him since the first informant had gone ahead in political scene defeating the accused no.1., It is, therefore, alleged that the accused persons went to one Gopal Khatri to give supari for murder of the first informant. It is alleged that they had come with an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and demanded further amount of Rs.10 lakhs. However, the said Gopal Katri refused to do so and, thereafter, they went to Amar Mulchandani and Kanu Matani. On the basis of the suspicion that the applicants had given supari for the murder of the first informant, an offence came to be registered under sections 115 and 120-B of the I.P.C. 5. From the perusal of sections 115 and 120-B, it could be seen that 3 the said two sections do not constitute an offence independently. Prima facie, sections 115 and 120-B could be invoked only if there is some other substantive offence charged with. However, I would not like to comment thereupon inasmuch as the investigation is still in progress. 6. I have perused the material in support of the prosecution case. Except said Gopal Khatri, the other two persons named in the F.I.R. Amar Mulchandani and Kanu Matani do not support the prosecution case. It is the contention of the applicants that said Gopal Katri is on enmical terms with the applicants inasmuch as certain property dispute is pending between them. 7. The applicants were arrested on 20.1.2010 and they are in custody for almost one month and 20 days. 8. From the perusal of the investigation papers, it is clear that the investigation is almost complete. The applicants are in magisterial custody and, as such, their personal interrogation is also not necessary. 9. Insofar as the apprehension of the prosecution regarding influencing the witnesses is concerned, the same appears to be ill-founded inasmuch as most of the prosecution witnesses are the complainant, his 4 wife, his brother and said Gopal Katri and his wife. The applicants are having deep roots in the society and are, therefore, not likely to flee away from the ends of justice. 10. Criminal Application No.704 of 2010 is, therefore, allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicants shall report to Pimpri police station on every Sunday between 10 a.m. and 12.00 noon. 11. The applicants shall not make any attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence. 12. It is made clear that the observations made herein are for the purpose of deciding the application and the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by the same at the stage of trial. B. R. GAVAI, J.