1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.108/2011 (Rajesh Gomaji Dhurwe .vrs. State of Maharashtra) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.121/2011 (Piyush Pravin Borikar and one .vrs. 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 Mr. D.K. Hazarey, Advocate a/w Mr. A.M. Jaltare, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the respondents/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2011 The reply filed by the prosecution is taken on record. Heard. By these applications, accused no.3, accused no.4 and accused no.6, out of in all 8 accused, charge sheeted by Sindewahi Police Station, District – Chandrapur, as a result of investigation of Crime No. 4/2010 for offence under sections 302, 234, 201, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for bail. The said offence was registered after the beheaded corpse was found in Alesur forest on 18.2.2010. One decomposed head was found on 27.2.2010 at a place about 7 k.m. away from the place 2 at which earlier referred corpse was found. The investigating agency received a clue about the crime committed and regarding the involvement of the applicants when charge sheeted accused nos.2 and 3 were arrested by Crime Branch, Nagpur in connection with some other crime. It appears that thereafter the statement of one Shubhangi Dhurve was recorded, who had identified the dead body being that of her father. The prayer for bail is objected by the learned APP on the ground of there being material in the shape of the statement of said Shubhangi amongst other revealing that on 17.2.2010 at about 1.30 pm deceased had left the company of the applicants and other charge sheeted accused for searching her mother, who had left house about six months prior to the said day. It is urged that said material also reveals that out of them, charge sheeted accused no.3 only returned to house and deceased never returned thereafter. The learned APP thus canvassed that the involvement of the applicants in murdering the deceased is borne from the circumstance of deceased having been lastly seen alive in the company of them prior to his death on 17.2.2010. It is urged that there is also material in the shape of confession made by accused no.2, accused no.3 and accused no.8 showing their involvement and so also the involvement of the co-accused in the said crime. The learned counsel for the applicants have rightly pointed out that the circumstance of deceased being lastly seen alive in the company of the applicants prior to his death, on 17.2.2010 by itself cannot be regarded circumstance prima facie establishing 3 involvement of the applicants in the commission of offence of murder and/or for the destruction of the evidence of the said offence in absence of close proximity between two events being established and so also the statement made by co-accused in memorandum/discovery panchanama regarding the role allegedly played by the other co-accused cannot be said to be useful/legally admissible material against co- accused. Having regard to such character of prosecution evidence, the prayer for bail will deserve consideration. The same deserve consideration as the investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed but no other circumstance/materials pointed out by the learned APP for advancing the prosecution case. However, considering the nature of the crime committed, it will be proper to seek heavy bail and impose proper conditions. The applicants are directed to be released on bail in connection with said crime upon each of them furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety each in the like amount and subject to the conditions that applicants - (i) shall attend the Investigating Officer of Sindewahi Police Station in between 7 pm and 8 pm on every Monday until further order, (ii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not leave the same without the permission of the trial Court, (iii) shall not indulge in any activity of tampering prosecution evidence and/or indulge in any activity of hampering the progress of the trial, 4 (iv) shall not commit any offence while on bail. Nothing in aforesaid order should be construed as an opinion expressed by the court upon the merits of the prosecution case. Both the applications stand disposed of. Criminal Application (APPP) No.193/2011 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE Gulande