1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3094/2009 ( (1)Bablu @ Mahadeo Amrutrao Jagtap and another vs. State of Maharashtra ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr U N Vyas, Adv. for applicants Mrs.Rachana Wasnik APP for Respondent-State *** C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 16 th September, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants pray for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.275/2009 reported at Civil Lines, Akola Police Station, for offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to learned Advocate for the applicants statements of alleged eye witnesses, namely, Pravin Shinde and Ashok Yadav were recorded after much delay i.e. on 17.7.2009 while the incident is alleged to have taken place on 23.4.2009 about which FIR was lodged on 24.4.2009 itself, at the instance of father of the deceased. The said FIR was lodged on the basis of statements by son-in-law Ravindra Bhoyar of the first informant that Balya was assaulted in the school by some persons. Thus, investigation started into the offence of alleged murder. 2. Earlier it appears that the applicants had moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola who, by order dated 29th July 2009 rejected the bail application by reasoned order, in view of the serious nature of the accusations as also because there was ample material in the form of statements of eye witnesses regarding brutal murder of the deceased. 3. Although it appears that statements of eye witnesses were recorded belatedly, the same shows that both of them i.e. Pravin & Ashok attributed active role to these applicants in assaulting Balya. It appears from the 2 material collected during the course of investigation that there was prior incident indicating enmity between deceased Balya’s family and the applicants and their relatives, on the other hand. 4. The post-mortem notes indicated that multiple injuries including stab wounds on vital part of the body as also lacerated wounds on occipital region forehead, etc. were noticed; whereas according to medical opinion, the deceased had died due to head injury and injury to brain. It is further indicated from the material collected during the course of investigation that blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the applicants -Bablu and Sachin; so also the weapon of offence is alleged to have been recovered during the course of investigation pursuant to the memorandum statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Report from the expert is still awaited. Under these circumstances, considering the prima facie material indicating involvement of these applicants collected so far attributing active role to them at the time of actual assault on the deceased as also material in the nature of circumstantial evidence pointing towards their prima facie involvement for the offence of murder and prospects of long sentence of imprisonment for life or death, may impel them to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence, I am not inclined to to grant bail. However, the applicants are at liberty to apply for bail before the trial Court on merits, after receipt of expert’s opinion. Application is rejected. JUDGE sahare