1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1153 OF 2010 Mallikarjun @ Mallappa s/o Basavnappa Sunale ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondent, assisted by Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for original complainant ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 16th April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent, assisted by Mr. V.D. Gunale, learned counsel for the original complainant. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.138/2009, registered with Omerga Police Station, District Osmanabad, for the offences punishable 2 under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Cod, since the applicant was arrested thereunder on 31.8.2009 and he is under judicial custody presently. 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Vithal Rama Sasture on 22.8.2009, who noticed certain gunny bags near bridge situated on National Highway No.9 near village Dhaktiwadi and accordingly, police personnel arrived there and they found three gunny bags containing 8 pieces of human body, almost in mutilated condition. Thereafter news was flashed in newspaper on 30.8.2009, and one Vishwanath came forward and identified the said dead body which was of his cousin brother namely Devidas. Accordingly, applicant namely Mallikarjun and co-accused namely Madhavrao and Sharanappa and other co-accused persons namely Nagraj, Natraj and Sharanbasappa were arrayed in the present crime as suspects. 4. It cannot be disputed from the condition of the dead body that victim Devidas met with homicidal death. However, the prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence since there is no direct evidence in respect of death of said victim Devidas. Apparently, the statement of Vishwanath discloses that there was long standing dispute over agricultural land between the family members which was pending before Tahsildar. It also appears that 3 co-accused Madhavrao was mediator in the said transaction and Sharanbasappa was the servant of the applicant herein. It is also alleged that the applicant herein is the mastermind behind the said land transaction, which is said to be the motive behind murder of Devidas. 5. The investigation papers and statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation disclose that on 21.8.2009, the co-accused Madhavrao had been to the house of deceased, from where the said victim was taken to Humnabad under the pretext to attend the Court matter. Moreover, the statements of witnesses also disclose that Madhavrao was last seen together in the company of the victim Devidas and later on, the deceased was taken to one agricultural field situated in the State of Karnataka, where other co-accused were present. It also appears that, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that, victim Devidas consumed liquor and thereafter he was murdered and his body was cut into pieces. Pertinently, the said spot of incident was shown by the applicant herein under the disclosure statement recorded during the course of investigation on 1.9.2009. 6. It is also alleged that, although the applicant had purchased the lands by two sale deeds dated 6.9.2007, the victim 4 Devidas was hindrance and obstacle in entering to his name on the records of rights, who objected therefor. Therefore, it is alleged that the applicant is mastermind in eliminating the said victim Devidas, which appears to be the motive for the commission of the offence. 7. Although the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the apprehension is posed that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses. 8. Mr. Gunale, learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that, various offences have been registered against the applicant and same are pending at Bhalki Police Station and Khadak-Chincholi Police Station in Karnataka State bearing C.R. Nos.31/1999, 126/2005, 40/1999, 14/1997, 56/1999, 98/2000, 82/2004, 43/2005, 53/2006, 29/2007 and 41/2005. 9. Having the comprehensive view of the matter, and considering the seriousness of the offence, I am of the view that applicant has failed to make out the case for grant of bail and it is not desirable to release the applicant on bail and, therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 5 10. In the result, present application being sans merits, same stands dismissed. 11. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri1153.10