IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1471/2008 Nagorao Sakharam Gedam vs. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 5 th JUNE, 2008. Heard Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri D.B.Patel, A.P.P. for respondent. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant along with other accused by name Laxman is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 342, 376 r/w Section 34 of the IPC arising out of Crime No. 127/2007 of Police Station Bramhapuri. The other accused Laxman has not applied for bail. He is in jail as per the submissions. The evidence that appears against this applicant appears to be only circumstantial in nature. Learned A.P.P. has pointed has pointed out that the applicant had discovered the clothes which were blood stained, which is not satisfactorily explained. It would be seen that the report of C.A. is yet to be received, even though the charge sheet appears to have been filed some time in December 2007. It is necessary to bear in mind that merely because there is discovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of accused/applicant, that may create some suspicion against the applicant. But the same would not prove the guilt of the accused/applicant positively. The other contentions raised by learned A.P.P are that the applicant's cycle was used by other accused for carrying the dead body. It is his submission that with help of the present applicant, the said cycle could not have been used and the dead body could not have been carried. It is necessary to note the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the said cycle was lying outside the godown, therefore, it could have been used by the other accused, in this context, which is not totally unacceptable. The other contentions raised by learned A.P.P. are from the alleged confessional statement of other accused. But it appears that said confessional statement is made to the police and therefore, it is not admissible. There are no other circumstances would could be pointed out by the learned A.P.P. to incriminate the present applicant for the aforesaid offence. No doubt, the applicant is Up-sarpanch and Member of Tanta Muktri Samittee and as such influential person. But merely because he is an influential person, as observed by the learned trial Judge, that there is possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence, fact remains that there has to be sufficiently incriminating evidence on record to point out guilt of the applicant/accused to some certainty. In these circumstances of the case, the applicant cannot be denied bail. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall attend the trial regularly and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. Bail in trial Court. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and as such they shall not influence the learned trial Judge while deciding the matter on merits. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Rvj