1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1593 OF 2010 1. Sambhaji s/o Ramchandra Kale 2 Dattatraya Bhagwan Dhotre ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Mr. K.D. Bade-Patil, advocate for the applicants Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent No. ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 23RD JUNE, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This application is filed for regular bail in connection with crime No. 6 of 2009 registered with Dharur police station for the offences punishable under section 306, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 2 It is not in dispute that the application filed on behalf of the applicants herein for anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court on 13.2.2009. The applicants were arrested on 10.3.2010. The 2 applicants herein filed Criminal Misc. application No. 40 of 2010 for regular bail before the Additonal Sessions Judge, Majalgaon. The Additonal Sessions Judge, Majalgaon by an order dated 13.4.2010 rejected the said application. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the applicants invited my attention to the contents in the complaint and submitted that in para 2, applicant No.1 is not named by the complainant. According to learned counsel even if the allegations in the complaint are taken as it is that the applicant No.2 alongwith the applicant No.1 and one more accused went to the house of the deceased and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-, no case is made under Section 306 of I.P.C.. According to the counsel for the applicants, the incident in question is not taken place. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken as it is, no offence is made out against the applicants. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant or other witnesses have not named the applicant No.1. In fact the applicants are residents from Solapur district and the alleged offence is taken place in Beed district and therefore, there is no reason as to how the complainant or the other witnesses knew the names of the applicants. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants are in jail since 10.3.2010. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the application, annexures thereto and submitted that applicants are entitled for bail. 3 4 On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted that the incident took place in the morning hours at about 3.45 a.m. on 23.1.2009 and dead body of the deceased was found on the very same day in the agricultural field of Vyankati Sopan. According to the learned A.P.P. there is proximity of the applicants’ act with the incident in question. Learned A.P.P. further invited my attention to the statements of witnesses viz. Sakharam, Ankush and Madhukar and contended that all these three witnesses have named the applicants in their statements and also stated the incident in categorically terms. He further submitted that not only that the applicants demanded money but the threats were given and the deceased was taken out from his house to road. Deceased rescued from the clutches of the applicants and due to the threat given by the applicants, he committed suicide on the same day. Therefore, he submitted that this is not fit case to grant bail. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. I have also perused the investigation papers made available by learned A.P.P. 6 It is not in dispute that the application which was filed by the applicants for anticipatory bail came to be rejected on 13.2.2009. The applicants after rejection of their application for anticipatory bail, came to be arrested by the police after about 13 months. It is also not in 4 dispute that one of the accused viz. Pushpa, who is wife of applicant No.2 herein is released on anticipatory bail and was directed to stay within the jurisdiction of Beed District. 7 On reading the complaint, it appears that on 23.1.2009 at about 3.45 a.m. the applicant No.2 alongwith his wife and one Sambha Kale i.e. applicant No.1 herein and one more unknown person from Madha, district Solapur came to the house of the complainant and woke up the complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant and her husband came out of house, at that time the applicants alongwith one unknown person caught hold the husband of the complainant and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-, he was threatened that in case no amount is given they will kill him. They took him to road site. It is further alleged that in view of the fear complainant’s husband rescued himself and ran away. On the very same day after taking search, dead body of deceased was found in hanging position to a Babhul tree in the field of one Vyankati Sopan. 8 Since this court is considering the matter only for grant of bail, it is necessary to consider that if the applicants are granted bail, whether they will make themselves available for trial. It is not in dispute that place of incident is in Beed district and the applicants are from Solapur district. The applicants are not ordinary residents of Beed District. One of the reason, which is assigned by the Additonal Sessions Judge, 5 Majalgaon while rejecting the application for bail, is that the applicants if released on bail, may not be available for trial. Coming to the merits of the matter, prima facie on reading the contents of the F.I.R., it appears that name of both the applicants find place in the complaint. Not only that, three witnesses whose statements are recorded by the Investigating Officer, have stated about the incident and also named the applicants. It is also not in dispute that the dead body of deceased was found on the very same day. As submitted by the learned A.P.P. there were only ligature marks on the dead body and no other injuries were found on the dead body of deceased. 9 Taking over all view of the matter and keeping in mind the fact that after the application of the applicants for anticipatory bail was rejected, the applicants were suppose to make available themselves for interrogation. However, they were arrested after 13 months by the Investigating Officer. This Court by order dated 9.6.2010 called report from learned J.M.F.C. Dharur. In the said report, it is mentioned that original accused No.2 Pushpa who was released on anticipatory bail did not appear in the proceeding of RC.C. No. 36 of 2010. It is also mentioned by learned J.M.F.C. in his report that the whereabouts of the accused No.2 are not known now and on enquiry with the son of the original accused Pushpa, her address is not given by him. Non 6 bailable warrant is issued to secure the presence of original accused No.2 Pushpa. As already mentioned, the accused No.2 is wife of applicant No.2 herein. It appears that learned J.M.F.C. is not able to commit the case for trial. 10 On careful perusal of the contents of the complaint, order passed by the Additonal Sessions Judge, Majalgaon and the investigation papers made available by learned A.P.P., prima facie it clearly appears that there is proximity between the act committed by the applicants and the suicide committed by the deceased. It would not be safe to release the applicants-accused on bail since they are residents of another District and may not be available for trial. Therefore, the application filed by the applicants for regular bail stands rejected. It will be open for the applicants to renew their prayer for bail after six months. With these observations, application is rejected. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/