jpc ba857-11 (copy).sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 857 OF 2011 Mallinath @ Lalya Hanumant Jadhav ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Vikram R. Chavan, for the applicant Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 20th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Chavan, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the State. 2. I have gone through the First Information Report. I have glanced through the copy of the charge-sheet that is annexed to the bail application. 3. The applicant and three others are alleged to have committed murder of one Smt. Sulabha and Smt. Smita on 17/4/2010. The case of the investigating agency is that they had entered the house of the first informant for the purpose of committing robbery and that during the robbery, they assaulted and killed the said two women. The applicant was not available to the investigating agency initially. He was arrested jpc ba857-11 (copy).sxw 2 on 20th October, 2010. He was shown as 'wanted' in the charge sheet that had been filed against the other accused. 4. It is contended that, except the recovery of Mangalsutra, which is stated to be a part of the robbed property, there is no material against the applicant to connect him with the alleged robbery. It is submitted that the description of Mangalsutra allegedly recovered from the applicant does not tally with the description of the stolen Mangalsutra. It is also submitted that on the basis of this recovery, no inference that the applicant has committed murder, can be drawn and the adverse inference that could be drawn would be only for the offences punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that there are reported cases in which the Supreme Court of India has taken this view. 5. It is true that except such recovery, there is no material against the applicant. There is statement of one Dinesh Oswal, which shows that in the month of May, 2010, the applicant had kept the Mangalsutra in question with the said Dinesh Oswal, a Jeweller. 6. It is not possible to accept the contention that the Court would not be permitted to draw an inference of the applicant having committed murder, on the basis of the recovery, at the instance of the applicant, of the Mangalsutra that was robbed during the same jpc ba857-11 (copy).sxw 3 incident in which the murder took place. The presumptions of facts can be drawn, having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct etc., and by going by the probabilities of a given case. There is no question of stating that the recovery of the property would lead only to the inference that the person is either thief or owner of the stolen property, regardless of the circumstances such as whether the robbery and murder have taken place during the same incident, the motive for the murder, the time-gap between the offence and the recovery etc. 7. It is true that the except such evidence, there is no material against the applicant. However, I am informed that there are five previous criminal cases registered against the applicant, which are said to be pending. I find that those cases are in respect of house breaking, theft, robbery etc. 8. Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. The application is rejected. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)