1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application BA No.480/2011 Hasanlal Kothulal Lilhare Vs. State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 14/9/2011. Heard Mr. R. G. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.A. Kadu, learned APP for the respondent. The applicant, who has been arrested on 5.4.2011 in Ravanwadi Police Station Crime No.45/2011 registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed the present application for bail. The prosecution story is that on 4.4.2011 the son of deceased was searching his missing father in the field at about 9.00 a.m. When he saw the applicant and other alleged accused namely Ghyaniram carrying some heavy object in a gunny bag towards the field of Anandabai Upawanshi, he watched both of them from some distance and after both the alleged accused went away, he went near gunny bag and found that the body of his father was lying there covered with dried leaves of Mango tree and grass. It is also alleged that there was 2 previous dispute between the deceased and both the alleged accused persons. In the present application, the applicant has alleged that he is not at all concerned in the case and he has no motive. He has further alleged that no specific role has been attributed to him and no recovery of any incriminating material has been made from him. The applicant has further alleged that the story put up by the prosecution may at the most reveal that the applicant had rendered help to accused no.1 after two days of incident to conceal the dead body of the deceased which offence comes under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for which the punishment is only three years imprisonment and fine. The applicant has stated that he is not habitual offender and is the sole earning member of his family and is ready to abide by any conditions which may be imposed on him. By way of reply, the respondent, no doubt, has resisted the application. However, the reply reveals that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The alleged weapon of assault namely stick has been recovered at the instance of alleged accused Ghyaniram and his clothes have also been recovered. The evidence of previous enmity as is revealed from the statement of Jaggusingh Suryawanshi is only between the deceased and accused no.1. No doubt the applicant and the said accused no.1 are cousin brothers. The only evidence which is against the present applicant could be of carrying the dead body 3 of the deceased, along with Ghyaniram and dumping in the field and covering it with grass etc. The investigation is now completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Looking at the circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and the antecedents of the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to bail. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 45/2011 registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code upon execution of personal recognition bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount under the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of this Court. JUDGE Ambulkar.