1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No.272/2011 ( Mangesh Purushottam Maske ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, P.S. Mohagaon, Distt. Yavatmal ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Adv. for applicant. Mr. D.B. Patel, APP for respondent/State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 21.6.2011. This is an application for releasing the applicant on bail against whom Crime No.1/2011, under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 109, 114, 447 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, has been registered at the police station Mohagaon, Distt. Yavatmal. On the night intervening 31/12/2010 and 1/1/2011, Yogendra – the deceased had arranged new year party in his field which is in village Hingni, Taluka Mohagaon. In the mid night, the friends of the deceased had left the place. The deceased, his brother Balaji who had lodged F.I.R. and two others stayed back. At about 12.30 midnight the present applicant and three others came to the spot. The applicant entered into an altercation with the deceased by alleging that the latter always used 2 to tease his cousin sister. Thereafter, the co-accused namely Kartik and Dewanand caught hold the deceased and the applicant dealt blows of axe on the person of the deceased. Other co-accused by name Satish dealt blows of Koyta (scythe) on the person of the deceased. Three more co-accused were verbally instigating the main assailants. The complainant and others tried to intervene but were also beaten with fists and kicks. The deceased was firstly brought to the place where there were huts and from there in an auto-rickshaw he was brought to the hospital at Savna. The deceased was declared dead. It is the prosecution case that 3 to 4 days prior to this incident the applicant and his associates had threatened the deceased on the ground that the latter used to tease his cousin sister. F.I.R. was lodged at about 7.30 a.m. in the police station Mohagaon which is about 5 kilometers from the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the co-accused in this case having been released, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. He invited my attention to the statement of Renukabai. According to him, neither the complainant nor any one has actually seen the incident. It is his contention that the medical evidence is not consistent with the eye witness account. No blood stains on clothes of the applicant were found. The evidence collected by the prosecution do not point out involvement of the present applicant, he urged. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad rejected the bail application of the present applicant by order dated 28/4/2011. He considered the evidence collected by the prosecution while holding that the prima facie case under section 302 is made out against the applicant. He 3 rejected the ground of parity raised by learned counsel for the defence by observing that on the basis of the role attributed to the co-accused they have been enlarged on bail. As regards the statement of Renukabai who had informed the mother of the deceased that the deceased was lying in an injured condition by the side of the road, learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed that she was not the witness to the incident. In fact it is the case of the complainant that firstly the deceased was lifted and brought up to the place where there were huts and thereafter an auto-rickshaw was engaged and he was carried to the hospital. The postmortem notes point out that in all there were seven injuries out of which six were incise wounds of grievous nature, mostly on head. These injuries are possible by weapons like axe and koyta (scythe). The supplementary statement of the complainant Balaji is perused by me. There is nothing in the supplementary statement to doubt the involvement of the applicant. Considering the gravity and nature of the offence and the evidence showing the involvement of the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the bail application. Application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.