1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2784 OF 2010 1 Dyaneshwar Hilal Dhangar, age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture; 2 Shalikrao @ Shaligram Hilal Dhangar, age: 41 years, Occ: Agriculture; 3 Santosh Hilal Dhangar, age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture; All R/o Chimthana, Tq.Shindkheda, District Dhule. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM: A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 03 rd August, 2010. P.C.: 1 By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No.49/10, registered in Shindkheda Police Station, District Dhule, for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 448, 452, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in which, applicants were arrested on 9 th May, 2010. It is informed and not in dispute that after the investigation was over in the CR, charge sheet was filed 2 and later on, after completing the requisite formalities, the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions, Dhule vide Sessions Case No.110/10. 2 Heard Counsel for the applicants and A.P.P. for the State. 3 It is informed that investigation is already over. Perused the post mortem notes which are placed in my hand. The post mortem notes indicate no external injury is noticed other than hanging mark of ligature, in column no.17. On internal examination of dead body of deceased Daulat Mangalsing Girase, intestine and internal organs of abdomen were found in ruptured condition and the cause of death, as opined by the Medical Officer is, “death due to neurogenic shock and due to rupture of small intestine due to blunt trauma to the abdomen”. This probable cause of opinion of death of deceased Daulat is required to be considered in connection with other papers of investigation. 4 The papers of investigation disclose and not in dispute that deceased and applicants are neighbours of each other. The applicants are brothers inter se. The plain reading of F.I.R. registered by the father of deceased on 8 th May, 2010, indicate that some quarrel took place between deceased and 2 nd applicant about 15 days prior to the alleged incident as the 2 nd applicant suspect that deceased is having evil eye on his spouse. Even in the night of the incident at 8.30 p.m., deceased was found on the `otla’ in front of the house of 2 nd applicant and on that count, the 2 nd applicant has assaulted the deceased by stick. The complainant rescued him. The deceased left the residence around 9.30 p.m. where he was followed by these applicants and assaulted. During that assault, there was a stick in the hand of applicant no.1, while applicants no.2 and 3 gave fists and 3 kick blows on the abdomen of deceased. During investigation, statements of witnesses recorded also support this version of the complainant in the last para of the complaint that during scuffle, deceased was assaulted with fists and kick blows on his abdomen, which is connected with the probable cause of death. 5 From the papers of investigation, the presence as well as assault at the hands of applicants, before the alleged incident took place, cannot be disputed. It appears, after that incident was over, deceased was brought back to his residence. He was sleeping inside the house. Complainant father was sleeping outside the house. But, in the morning, body of Daulat – the deceased, was found in hanging condition inside the house. It is not proper to criticise on the aspect that when somebody entered in the house, how the complainant, who was sleeping outside, has not noticed hanging, But hanging, as suspected by the complainant in the complaint, that initially deceased was murdered and then was hanged, is not supported by the medical report. But as per the medical report, the death was due to assault on the abdomen of deceased, which required to be considered in the light of allegation against the deceased by the 2 nd applicant who suspected that the deceased was having evil eye on his spouse and on this count, in the earlier night, a dispute took place between the 2 nd applicant and the deceased and in these premises, whether the act at the hands of applicants covers under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or covers under the Exceptions thereunder is a debatable question. In view of all this, as the investigation is over and considering relations between the parties, there are no chances of tampering with the witnesses at the hands of these applicants. Case is made out to release the applicants on bail on putting stringent conditions. 4 6 Hence, applicants deserve following order: ORDER (a) Criminal Application is allowed. (b) All the three applicants be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty thousand) each and on executing P.R. Bond in the like amount. (c) After release on bail, applicants are prohibited to enter in village Chimthana, Rajput Galli, Tq. Shindkheda, till Sessions Case No.110/10 on the file of Sessions Court / Additional Sessions Court, Dhule, is finally disposed of. (D) Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR) JUDGE ******* adb/criapln278410