{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4246 OF 2009 Sunil s/o Laxman Ghonse Age-30 years, Occ-Driver R/o Walmiknagar, Mukhed Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Mukhed, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENT ....... Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 7th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.71/2009 registered with Mukhed Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 364, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the applicant is in jail since 28.05.2009 and as the investigation in the case is over and charge sheet is filed on 24.09.2009. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. It appears that the offence came to be registered on the compliant lodged on 19.05.2009 by Shivani wife of deceased Sanjay Devkate. It is alleged that deceased Sanjay is brutally murdered by the present applicant with the assistance of his two associates. It is also alleged that the complainant had illicit relations with the applicant. It is also alleged that in the evening of 18th May, 2009, when the applicant along with her husband, came to Mukhed for going to Puna, at about 4 O’clock she received a phone call from her husband that the applicant and his associates have called him to celebrate a party and hence he had canceled the programme of going to Puna. It is further alleged that at 7.00 p.m. one more phone call from Shivaji was received by the complainant informing that applicant and his associates had forced her husband to consume liquor and he was being assaulted and he was forcibly taken on a motorcycle by the applicant and his associates. It is further alleged at at around 8.00 p.m. the complainant received a phone call from the applicant informing her that he had assaulted her husband and he is lying unconscious in the field of the applicant. When the complainant reached the field, she noticed that her husband was lying in the field and blood was oozing from his mouth and nose. She also noticed marks of assault on his {3} body. When the complainant tried to inform the said fact to her sister, she was stopped and her mobile was snatched. Thereafter, one jeep was called by the applicant and body of her husband was shifted from the field. Due to fear she could not immediately inform the said incident, however, later on she informed the same to the villagers. Complaint came to be lodged on the next day and dead body of the deceased was found in decomposed condition in a river bed on 22.05.2009. Some parts of the body were eaten by wild animals. The applicant along with his two associates came to be arrested on 28.05.2009. 4. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that though the complainant had an occasion to meet with the police jeep, yet she did not disclose the said incident to them while her way to the field. It is also tried to urge that there is delay in lodging the complaint. My attention is drawn towards the statement of the owner of the jeep wherein according to learned counsel for the applicant, jeep was taken from him at around 1.00 a.m. on 19th May 2009 and thus there is variance in the timings given by the complainant and by the owner of the jeep. According to learned counsel for the applicant this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the same are not sufficient to connect the applicant with the said offence. In the premise, it is urged to enlarge the applicant on bail. 5. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground {4} that there are statements of witnesses, who have seen that the deceased was being in the company of the applicant and his associates in the late night of 18th May. It is stated by 3 to 4 witnesses that from 5.30 to 7.30 and thereafter, the deceased was seen in the company of the applicant. According to learned APP, the applicant is the paramour of the complainant and the deceased was hurdle in his way and hence to eliminate him from his way, he has murdered the deceased and thus there is motive behind the crime. 6. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the PM notes as well as the place from where the dead body was collected, it can safely be inferred that the death is a homicidal death and not a natural or suicidal. Statements of the eye witnesses clearly indicate that in the late evening of 18th May 2009, the deceased was in the company of the applicant and his associates. Thus, there is substance in the allegations of the complainant that she received a phone call that applicant and his associates have forced the deceased to consume liquor and he was assaulted by them. At the same time, it has also to bear in mind that the deceased was seen in the field of the applicant by the complainant herself. She has vividly narrated the condition of her husband, which she had noticed in the field. Thus, the links establish the last seen theory of the deceased in the company of the applicant and his associates. The way and manner in which the deceased is murdered brutally, clearly establishes that the {5} applicant is the mastermind behind the said murder as he was the hurdle in his love affair. Thus, the evidence collected during the investigation, prima facie, establishes nexus between the cause of death of the deceased and the acts of the applicant. Considering the way and manner in which the deceased is murdered, there are chances of tampering of prosecution evidence at the hands of the applicant, particularly the complainant as he is her paramour in the event to of his release on bail. In the premise, no case is made out to release the applicant on bail. 7. In the result, the application, which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4246-09