1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2010 Ravindra S/o.Bhausaheb Tupe, Age-22 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Pathardi, Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Sangamner Taluka Police Station, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.336 OF 2010 1. Manisha W/o.Shivraj Satpute, Age-24 years, Occu-Housewife, R/o.Pathardi, Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. Gangubai Bhausaheb Tupe, Age-51 years, Occu-Housewife, R/o.Pathardi, Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Vishnu S/o.Gopa Khamkar, Age-39 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Vankute, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANTS 2 Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Sangamner Taluka Police Station, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.345 OF 2010 1. Nana S/o.Gopinath Minde, Age-35 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Modhalwadi, Pimpalgaon Depa, Tq.Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. Subhash S/o.Ramnath Minde, Age-32 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Modhalwadi, Pimpalgaon Depa, Tq.Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 3. Laxman S/o.Sampat Gagare, Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Mandve, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar 4. Sampat S/o.Vitthal Datir, Age-22 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Nandur Khandarmal, Tq.Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Sudhir S/o.Madhavrao Thorat, Age-35 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Rahuri, Tq.Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANTS 3 Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Sangamner Taluka Police Station, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, learned counsel for applicants in all these applications. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State in all these applications. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 04/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By all these three applications, the respective applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.30/2009, registered in Sangamner Taluka Police Station, for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 302, 120-B, 34 of IPC r/w. 3(1)(4)(5)(8) of The Atrocities Act. 2. On 22/10/2008, dead body of deceased Shivraj Satpute was found near the Petroling Scod Police Chowky in Chandanapuri Ghat. On the basis of number of the motorcycle, which found lying near the dead body, the owner of the motor bike was tressed, who is the first applicant in Cri.Appl. No.345/10. Applicant no.2 is the cousin brother of the first applicant in the said application, while applicant no.3 and 4 are the workers working in the workshop of the first applicant in that application. Applicant no.5 is doing the same 4 business in the same village, but at the distant place to whom with on some occasion, the work is provided by the first applicant in Cri.Appl. No.345/2010. Applicant no.1 in Cri.Appl.No.336/2010 is the wife of deceased Shivraj Satpute by name Manisha while the 2nd applicant is the mother of Manisha while the 3rd applicant is the husband of sister of said Manisha. Applicant in Cri.Appl.335/2010 is the brother of said Manisha. It appears that after the dead body was found in Chandanapuri Ghat, the complaint came to be lodged by the applicant in Cri.Appl.No.345/2010 in Sangamner Police Station and on that basis, CR No.324/2008 came to be registered for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 304(A), 279, 337, 338 r/w. 184 of The Motor Vehicles Act. During the investigation of the said offence, the autopsy on the dead body of Shivraj was conducted in the presence of complainant by name Sampat Satpute, the brother of the complainant. During the course of investigation in the said CR No. 324/2008, statement of said Sampat and his other relatives were also recorded. It appears that, after the investigation is over, report of “B” summary was filed by the police and the case came to be closed. 3. It further appears that on 21/11/2008, the said Sampat lodged a private complainant with J.M.F.C. Sangamner which was numbered as 402/2008 in which all these applicants were arrayed as an accused. There is an allegation that the 1st applicant in Cri.Appl.No. 345/2010 have an illicit relations with wife of deceased. Soon before the date of alleged incident occurred on 22/10/2008, the mother of Sampat by name Dwarkabai had an occasion to see the close 5 intimacy between Manisha, the wife of deceased Shivraj with the first applicant in Cri.Appl.No. 345/2010. Hence, on advice, Shivraj Satpute dropped his wife at her parents house. As the incident was disclosed by Dwarkabai about the illicit relations between Manisha and the said applicant Nana Gopinath, conspiracy was hatched between these applicants intersay for the common and unlawful object to kill Shivraj and the accident is the result of that conspiracy. On the basis of order passed by learned J.M.F.C. Sangamner, investigation was carried out and during that investigation, in the month of June 2009, statement of these applicants were also recorded. According to counsel for applicants that on clear perusal of the complaint as it is, it reveals that it is based on assumptions and presumptions as it do not find any particulars about the individual role of the applicants as well as the connective role played by these applicants, as the dead body was noticed by the Petrolling Scod of Police, but there is sweeping allegations against the police officials that no proper investigation was carried out and instead of asking re- investigation of the case, there are sweeping allegations against these applicants. As against this, according to learned APP, statement of Dwarkabai was recorded during the investigation, which discloses the motive behind this offence. 4. Considering these submissions across the bar, neither there is direct evidence nor there is circumstantial evidence, at least at this juncture to connect the applicants with this crime. 6 5. Considering the fact that the incident occurred in the month of October 2008, initially case of accident was recorded in which “B” summary report was filed. After one month, on suspicion, private complaint was lodged in which also the investigation is near about over as the charge sheet is on the way to be filed in the Court of Law. Still the evidence which speaks against these applicants is weak. 6. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In the premise, application deserves following order : O R D E R 1. All these applications are hereby allowed. 2. All the applicants be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.30/2009, registered in Sangamner Taluka Police Station, Tq.Sangamner, Dist Ahmednagar on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet. 4. Applicants in all the applications may apply for regular bail after the charge sheet is filed, if they so advised. 5. All the applications stand disposed of in terms of above order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.335-10