(1) Cri. Application No. 4227 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4227 of 2011 Raosaheb @ Suresh s/o. Manjabapu Shinde, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Applicant R/o. Pimpalgaon Turk, (Original accused Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar. no.2) versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Parner Police Station, Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. D.R. Korde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent / State. Mrs. Sabahat T. Kazi, Advocate, for the original complainant. ........................ (2) Cri. Application No. 4227 of 2011 CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers and heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking regular bail, in connection with Crime No. I-88/2011, registered at Police Station, Parner (District : Ahmednagar), for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34, of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that initially intimation was given by one Musa Shaikhlal Shaikh, on 10-5-2011, and accordingly, Accidental Death No. 25/2011 was registered, on 10-5-2011, at about 23.00 hours, in respect of death of Hussen Ismail Shaikh. Thereafter, the complainant, namely, Ajij Hussen Shaikh i.e. son of the victim, Hussen, lodged the complaint on 11th May 2011, and accordingly, offence was registered against the applicant and the co-accused on 11-5-2011. The contents of the said complaint disclose that his sister-in-law, Jainabi, i.e. the co-accused had love affair / illicit relations with the applicant herein. It is also (3) Cri. Application No. 4227 of 2011 alleged that the victim i.e. Hussen, who was father-in-law of Jainabi, was objecting to the said love affair / illicit relations. It is further alleged that the applicant herein is the paramour of Jainabi. It is further alleged that the applicant herein, in connivance with co-accused Jainabi, killed the victim Hussen, by throttling his neck and assaulting on his private part, on 10-5-2011, in between 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., when the victim was alone in the house and the complainant had gone for marriage. 4. Admittedly, the case is rested upon circumstantial evidence since there is no direct evidence to the occurrence of the incident. The complaint itself discloses that the applicant had visited house of Jainabi at about 5.00 p.m. on 10-5-2011, and both were chitchatting in her house at the said time i.e. soon before occurrence of the incident. The statement of Musa Shaikh, i.e. cousin brother of the complainant, discloses that he noticed that the applicant fled away towards hill, after occurrence of the incident, and at that time, Shaikh Musa's cousin, namely, Ajij, made inquiry with co-accused Jainabi, and thereupon she stated that they killed her father-in-law, since he was obstacle in their love affair, allegedly amounting to extra judicial confession. 5. Besides, blood stained clothes were recovered at the (4) Cri. Application No. 4227 of 2011 instance of the applicant under the memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, on 13-5-2011. Moreover, the inquest panchanama, and more particularly, clause 12 thereof, discloses injuries on the person of the victim, including injury on his private part. The post mortem notes, more particularly, clause no.17 thereof, are in tune with the said inquest panchanama, and the cause of death disclosed therein is cardio-respiratory arrest due to throttling, injury to vital organs and injury to private parts, which is in consonance with the contents of complaint. 6. Apart from that, it was pointed by the learned APP, that the mobile telephones bearing nos. 9673957540 and 9765498235, belonging to the applicant, and mobile telephone no. 7798363142, belonging to co-accused Jainabi, and the telephone record of the said mobile numbers disclose that there was frequent conversation between the said mobile phones, more particularly, on 10th May 2011 i.e. date of incident of murder of victim Hussen, and on the next day i.e. on 11th May 2011. Moreover, learned APP has submitted that the co-accused Jainabi had filed criminal complaint against the victim Hussen, ten days prior to the occurrence of the aforesaid incident, and the said fact cannot be ignored, and there appears to be strong motive behind the murder of victim Hussen. (5) Cri. Application No. 4227 of 2011 7. In the circumstances, prima facie, there appears to be incriminating evidence showing the complicity of the applicant, and therefore, although investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, applicant does not deserve grant of bail. 8. In the result, present Criminal Application lacks merits, and therefore, stands dismissed, and is disposed of finally. 9. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4227