1 Cri.Appln.No.5182/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5182/2010 (Suresh s/o Vasudeo Lomte and Anr. Vs. The State of Mah.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.VD Salunke, Adv. h/for Mr. SJ Salunke, Adv. for applicants; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. Mr.NB Ghute, Adv. for original complainant. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 11 th January, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) In Crime No.125/2010 registered at Dhoki Police Station, Osmanabad for an offence under Section 302, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC, exercise of powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C are sought by the applicants/accused, who claimed to be cousin father-in- law and cousin mother-in-law of the deceased. 3) The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused submits that applicant no.1 Suresh Vasudeo Lomate was on duty as driver – with MSRTC, supported by official record, including a certificate. Consequently, his involvement in the prosecution is erroneous and deserves pre-arrest bail. According to him, the applicants/accused are falsely implicated in the crime. 4) Apart from statement of Mahadeo, in investigation papers, there is a statement of another cousin Dattatraya, who has – seen and referred the name of present applicant no.1- Suresh and his wife Sitabai, having seen them in the morning of – 7.11.2010 at around 6.30 a.m., coming from the side of the well, where the deceased was found in drowning condition. Post mortem notes illustrate the deceased had several injuries on 2 Cri.Appln.No.5182/2010 her person. The cause of death is referred as asphyxia due to drowning. At this stage of the matter, plea of alibi raised by learned Counsel, is difficult to be acted upon, particularly in the light of the statements of two witnesses referred above. The surrounding circumstances do not warrant to entertain the application in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the application is rejected. 5) The observations are prima facie in nature. 6) The applicants/accused to surrender before the Police on 24th January, 2011. Consequently, the earlier protection is extended till then. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/