1 CR.APL NO.1099/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 17. APPLN/1099/2011 DR. SHASHIKANT MUKTESHWAR [Criminal] PAKALE V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Judge’s Orders Coram,appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Mr. Ashok Vibhute, Adv., h/f Mr.R.S.Sarvadnya, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:21-3-2011 1. Heard. The accused/applicant in custody for about three months, seeks bail in Crime No.82/2010 ( Sessions Case No. 44/2011) of Supa Police Station, dist. Ahmednagar, for offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120-B, 201 of IPC, Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The accused/applicant was a Medical Superintendent of Pathardi and for few days he was on duty at Nagar, effective from 11.11.2010. On 13.11.2010, Prakash Kandekar, a political worker was killed, giving rise to FIR vide No.82/2010. Several persons were nabbed. It revealed that it was an act of contract killing at 2 CR.APL NO.1099/2011 the behest of arrested accused. Cash stashed at some of the accused was recovered. Deceased Prakash succumbed due to injuries of fire arm. One such bullet was in his skull/brain seen in the X-ray as was drawn in the earlier night, however, at the time of post mortem, the bullet could not be retrieved. The accused/applicant, not concerned with the post mortem activities, was in the room near the dead body for a considerable period with Dr.Pathrikar. This is more so when Mr.Raut, who was In Charge of the Post Room, had left the room for 15 minutes and had gone to re-assemble the medical papers. It was, in the meantime, the activity of retrieving the bullet from the skull of Prakash has taken place. Dr.Raut, primarily, implicates the accused with his unauthorized entry in the post mortem room, loitering near the dead body, without any reason, suspicion remains and unauthorized illegal directions by Mr.Pathrikar and Dr.Raut succumbing to the same. 3. Learned Counsel, while arguing, criticized upon the learned Sessions Judge relying to the discovery statements of the two suspects Atish and Anil. I quite see, learned Sessions Judge should not have exclusively relied on the two discovery 3 CR.APL NO.1099/2011 statements, implicating the accused/applicant. The worth of the statements is in terms of Section 27 Evidence Act leading to discovery and nothing more. 4. It may be that the accused/applicant isnot a resident of Ahmednagar, or he has put in 15 years unblemished Government service. However, the accused/applicant participated in the concert as could be primarily evident and ensured free passage to the assailant. He being a responsible Government official was expected to be conscious and alive to his obligation. At this stage of the matter, it is hard to digest that the accused/applicant cannot be branded to be a conspirator. It is again inconceivable that the act of conspiracy reached its terminal point no sooner death of Prakash was achieved. Several facets of the conspiracy are to be unearthed in terms of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Conspiracy precedes the commission of offense, it is a continuing act/offense and it remain active as long as the Agreement to effect the unlawful object continues. 5. Long standing custody of the accused, would not be a parameter to release him on bail, particularly, in view 4 CR.APL NO.1099/2011 of the aim of the mentor engaging contract killer, eliminating the rivals and creating terror in the vicinity. The faith of the general public in the accused/applicant, a Medical Officer, has been tarnished and he has sabotaged the solemn obligation cast on him. The application is dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE AGP/1099-11crapl