{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2780 OF 2010 Liyakat Abdul Shaikh APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Vijay Sharma h/f Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.19/2010 registered with MIDC police station, Ahmednagar for an offence punishable u/s 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code with sections 3, 2 (5) and 3, 2 (6) of the Atrocities Act, as the applicant is in jail since 09.02.2010 and charge sheet has been field on 30.04.2010. It is informed that even the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No.184/2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. {2} 3. It appears that as one Deelip Barde was not traced since 20.11.2009, hence a missing case was registered on 5th December 2009 with MIDC police station and numbered as Missing Case No.38/2009. It further appears that during investigation of the said missing case, it transpired that said Deelip was picked up and taken to a hotel owned by one Jalindar. It was suspicion that said Deelip had stolen a bicycle. Thus, it appears that the accused named in the complaint enquired with Deelip, however he did not inform anything about the theft. It further appears that in the night on 26.11.2009 at about 8.30 the present applicant and one Hussain came at the said hotel and inquired with said Deelip in respect of the theft, and as he did not inform even to them, they gave dash on his head with their heads. Thereafter it is alleged that Deelip was collapsed and hence apprehending that he is dead, his body was taken and buried in a field. During the inquiry, the said place was shown by the accused from where a skeleton was recovered and was sent for test. Thereafter on 9th February 2010 the present offence came to be registered against the applicants and others and the applicant came to be arrested on the same day and now seeks bail on the ground that investigation is over and the co-accused are released on bail. 4. The application is opposed by learned APP on the ground that the death of deceased is caused due to blows given by the applicant and Husain and as such the applicant is not entitled {3} for bail. 5. Considering the rival submissions, it is clear that so far as the evidence collected during the investigation against the applicant and others is concerned the same is based on statements of the persons who are arrayed as accused. The papers of investigation disclose that when the alleged incident occurred, the applicant and Husain had been to the spot and at that time they were no way concerned with the deceased. From the discloser of the witnesses, it cannot be said that the act of the applicant was a premeditated one. If it is so coupled with the fact that now investigation is over, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount, if not required in any other offence. The applicant is directed not to leave the local jurisdiction of MIDC, police station Ahmednagar without previous permission in writing from the concerned criminal court or the IO concerned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2780-10