1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5324 OF 2009 Mr.Amol @ Laxmi Sadu Shejav. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5624 OF 2009 Rajkumar Mehilal Yadav. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil i/by M/s., Jay & Co. for the Applicants in Application No.5324/2009. Smt.M.H. Mhatre,APP for the State. Mr. Dhiraj Mirajkar with A.R. Mourya i/by ARM Legal for the Applicant in Application No.5624/2009. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 3/5/2010 PC : 1 Since both these applications arise out of the same crime registered as C.R.No.I-275/2009 by Nalasopara Police Station for the alleged offences 2 punishable under Sections 306, 363, 366(A), 376, 377 read with 34 of the I.P.C., both these applications can be conveniently disposed off together. The applicant in Criminal Application No. 5624/2009 Rajkumar Yadav is accused No.3 in the said crime whereas the applicant in Criminal Application No.5324/2009 Amol @ Laxmi Sadu is shown as an accused No.4 in the said crime. It is the prosecution case that deceased Lynn was friendly with four boys by names Ravindra @ Prem (accused No.1), Rajkumar (accused No.3), Amol (accused No.4) and Rai (accused No.2). That, on 1.8.2009 she went to attend her class. Her two friends by names Suruchi and Priyanka were also attending the class on that day. Their class was to end at 7.30p.m. but Lynn left the class early at 5.30p.m. Later on, when they were returning to their home at 7.30p.m. they found that Lynn was in a blue esteem car along with Prem-accused No.1 and two other boys. Lin introduced the boys as Rai(accused No.2) and Amol (accused No.4). The car then left place and 3 two girls, who are witnesses, returned to their own house. The police have recorded the statements of Suruchi and Priyanka on 9.8.2009. . The prosecution case is that after the car left the place, there was some problem of over flooding and therefore, the car was stopped in the garage of one Jitendra Kapekar whose statement has been recorded by the police on 6.2.2009. According to the police car was brought to his garage with the complaint of over flowing. A blue esteem car was brought to his garage at about 7.35.p.m.. A young boy aged about 20 to 22 years alighted from the car and told him about the defect. While he was repairing the same he heard a girl address the boy who had got down. She called him by name Roi (accused No.2) and asked him to hurry up. According to him, he recognized one more boy sitting inside the car i.e. Ravindra @ Prem as the said boy used to come to his garage. The prosecution case is that on 2.8.2009 in the morning Lynn returned home 4 and later on committed suicide at about 7.30a.m. When she returned home her mother was away trying to find her whereabouts but her brother was at home. Said brother informed his mother and subsequently crime was registered on a statement given by the P.S.I. The post mortem notes in this case clearly indicates that the deceased had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse as well as unnatural offence under Section 377 of the I.P.C. In so far as the applicant in Criminal Application No.5324/2009 i.e. Amol there is material against him in the form of circumstance of last seen together at 7.30 p.m. On 1.8.2009. Both Suruchi and Priyanka name him as a person present in the car. In so far as applicant in Criminal Application No. 5624/2009 is concerned none mention his presence in the said car. Witness Jitendra also does not specifically name the applicant. The prosecution also relied upon one statement of Robin who states that accused No.1 Ravindra @ Prem came to his house along with three friends at 8.30p.m. on 5 1.9.2009 and left after having a cup of tea. Robin also does not identify the applicant Rajkumar Yadav. Material against the applicant Rajkumar Yadav is only identification in an identification parade said to have been held on 27.3.2010 though this applicant was admittedly arrested on 3.8.2009, identification parade has been held after about 7 months during which period the said applicant Rajkumar has been in custody of the police. Surprisingly, Robin has not been included in the list of witnesses in the identification parade. There is no medical evidence to connect any of the accused with the crime. Taking into account the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to allow the Criminal Application No.5624/2009 and reject the Criminal Application No.5324/2009 since there is sufficient material to indicate that the applicant Amol was last seen together with the deceased at about 7.30p.m. on 1.8.2009. His application is therefore, stands dismissed. In so far as applicant in Criminal Application No.5624/2009 i.e. Rajkumar 6 Mehilal Yadav is concerned, he is however, released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he reports to the I.O. once in a fortnight on every first and third Monday s between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the disposal of the trial, he will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and will remain present on all the dates of his trial, unless exempted. Both the applications stand disposed off. 2 Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this court. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)