1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1706 of 2010 Anand Ramesh Gajbhiye ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Warud, Dist. Amravati Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.K.Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for the respondent -State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 03 rd Decem ber , 2010 . Heard. By the present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 86/2010, registered with Police Station, Warud, Dist. Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code. A report came to be lodged on 26/5/2010 by one Smt. Sindhubai Bele at Police Station, Warud. The sum and substance of the report is that a quarrel was took place between her brother Gautam and the applicant. On hearing shouts, she went to the house of Gautam. She found that the applicant was assaulting her brother by a wooden rafter. the mother-in-law of the applicant was holding Gautam. When Smt. Sindhubai tried to intervene in the matter, the applicant pushed her and told her to do whatever possible she can do and she may lodge report against him. On the next day, at about 2.00 p.m., when she again visited the house of her brother, she found that Gautam was lying on the ground. On asking, Gautam replied that he is assaulted on his stomach and she found that there was swelling on the stomach of Gautam. She immediately called the neighbourers for 2 help. Initially, Gautam was admitted to a private hospital of Dr. Godhane and by providing first aid, Dr. Bodhane referred Gautam to Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. When the treatment was going on in Medical Hospital, victim Gautam succumbed to the injuries on 23/5/2010. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the investigation in the said crime is completed and final report is also submitted. By referring to final report, learned Advocate submits that there is no material against the applicant to connect him with the said crime. The statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating agency are hear say as the witnesses were not present on the spot when the incident occurred. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that even accepting the case of the prosecution, it can be seen from the papers that the applicant had no intention to cause death of the victim. In view of above, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. To support his submissions, learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court, in the case of Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra .vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2009 All M.R. (Cri.) 3315. Per contra, Mr. Khan, learned APP for the State has filed reply and strongly opposed the application. The record of investigating agency is also placed before the court for perusal. Learned APP has invited my attention to the statement of one Golu @ Dipak Saneshwar, who stated that on hearing the noise of quarrel, when he went to the house of Gautam, he found that the applicant was having wooden stick in his hand and he gave successive blows of stick on the stomach of the victim. It is further stated that he intervened in the matter and separated the applicant and the victim. In the meantime, wife of the applicant also came there. The 3 statement of said witness clearly spells out about the presence of the applicant on the spot and the act committed by him. Learned APP further invited by attention to the medical evidence i.e. Post Mortem Report, which shows as many as 7 injuries including 3 contusions present over abdomen, chest, right thigh and surgical wound present over abdomen. It further refers that the abdominal cavity is filled with 200 cc redish blood, pink water fluid and opinion for probable cause of death is blunt trauma to abdomen. Learned APP submitted that the main witness i.e. complainant Sindhu and Golu are of the same area in which the applicant is residing and there is an apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail, he may pressurize these witnesses. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. After considering the material, I am of the opinion that there is strong material against the applicant. The judgment of this court in Fida Hussain’s case on which reliance has been placed by the applicant would not be applicable in the present case for the reason that applicant Fida Hussain there was involved in a financial scam, whereas in the present case serious allegation of murder is levelled against the applicant. Though, to counter the apprehension expressed by learned APP about pressurizing the prime witnesses by the applicant, learned Advocate submitted that the applicant is ready to reside at some other place, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail in view of the material collected by the investigating agency against the applicant. In the result, the criminal application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale