1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2041 OF 2010 Prakash Pralhad Chitodkar, Age-25 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Japi, Tq. and Dist. Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 06/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No. 83/2010, registered in Dhule Taluka Police Station, in which applicant came to be arrested on 17/03/2010 alongwith one co-accused, in which after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 17/05/2010 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Dhule. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. As inspite of specific communication by the office of learned APP to the concerned police station, papers of investigation were not forwarded to the office of APP, hence initially notice was issued to the 2 Investigation Officer to produce the papers. The Investigation Officer has not attended the Court on the adjourned date, hence notice was issued to the S.P., Dhule asking explanation about the action taken against the irresponsible officers and directions were given to learned S.P. Dhule to remain present before the Court. Today, the S.P. Dhule as well as the Investigation Officer is present before the Court. Today, they have filed their affidavit alongwith report dated 29/06/2010 and also in para no.3 of the affidavit, the Investigation Officer has tendered unconditional apology. Hence his explanation is accepted and notice is discharged with a warning to the S.P. Dhule to take appropriate steps against his officers, by the way, they will punctually attend the court work and will submit the papers of investigation to the Office of learned APP of High Court. 4. The FIR came to be lodged by the complainant /son of deceased about the incident which took place in the early hours of 07/03/2010, wherein it is alleged that the present applicant and one Nana More were abusing each other in front of the house of complainant. Getting annoyed from the shouts and the abuse by the applicant, and said Nana, father of the complainant Bhanudas came outside the house and tried to intervene in the quarrel. As the applicant and said Nana were under the influence of alcohol and they throw up and down the deceased Bhanudas in which he sustained injuries. Bhanudas was admitted in the hospital where he succumb to death after 9 days on 16/03/2010. Perusal of the report of post mortem shows that there are 3 injuries on the arm side of deceased 3 as noted in coloumn no.17 of the post mortem notes. Cause of death is due is due to hemorrhage and due to head injury. The statement projected by the complainant is fully supported by the eye witnesses who are the family members of the complainant and close relatives of the deceased. The fact require for consideration is that whether the act of the applicant is pre-mediated act with intention. As per the facts disclosed in the complaint and supported by the eye witnesses, at the time of alleged incident, applicant and Nana were under the influence of alcohol. The act took place when Bhanudas inquired with them when they were abusing each other. In the premise, at least at this stage, it can not be inferred that the act of the applicant and Nana is pre-mediated act with intention and if it is so, as now for considerable period, the applicant is behind bars and the witnesses are the family members of the deceased, there are rare chances of tampering with prosecution evidence. In the premise, application deserves following order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are prima-facie based on the papers of investigation. Learned Sessions Court not to influence with these observations. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.2041-10