1 CAG-570.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.570 OF 2010 Ganesh Dashrath Gholap .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.561 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Vijay @ Uncle Baburao Gholap .... Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3941 OF 2010 Ganesh Dashrath Gholap .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Rahul S. Kate for the Applicant in CAs-570 & 3941 of 2010 and for the Respondent in CA-561 of 2010. Shri J.P. Kharge, APP, for the State in all CAs. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2010 P.C: 1. Criminal Application No.570 of 2010 is for bail by a person who is accused of having 2 CAG-570.10 raped and murdered one Pooja. Criminal Application No.3941 of 2010 is the application for bail by the same person who is alleged to have murdered one Balasaheb who was possibly likely to disclose the involvement of the applicant in the rape and murder of Pooja. Criminal Application No.561 of 2010 is the application by the State for cancellation of bail granted to co-accused Vijay by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the case of murder of the said Balasaheb. 2. The facts which are relevant for deciding these applications are as under: The victim was just a 13-years old girl taking education in school. It was alleged that the applicant Ganesh had a fancy for her and had indicated that he would make love to her. Deceased Balasaheb had tried to dissuade the applicant from going ahead with his plans. Eventually, on 3-8-2009 the applicant allegedly raped and murdered the said Pooja, since Pooja offered resistance. With the help of Vijay he caused the dead body to be shifted elsewhere in another field. Initially, a complaint that Pooja was missing was made and thereafter a report was made after the dead body was found, 3 CAG-570.10 that Pooja had been raped and murdered by unknown persons. An offence was registered and the investigation commenced. 3. In the course of the investigation, the police made inquiries with several persons, including deceased Balasaheb. On 10-8-2009 Balasaheb committed suicide by consuming insecticide in the field of the applicant s uncle Vijay. Balasaheb was serving with Vijay as his Mukadam. Balasaheb had written in his suicide note, which was found, that he committed suicide because of the harassment by the police in Pooja s murder. It is the prosecution s theory that Balasaheb was made to write the suicide note and to consume poison by Ganesh and Vijay at the point of a sword. 4. Both Ganesh and Vijay were arrested in both the crimes. Vijay was admitted to bail in the offence of rape and murder of Pooja since he was allegedly involved only in causing the disappearance of evidence. The bail granted to Vijay in the said offence has not been questioned by the prosecution. 5. Both Ganesh and Vijay were also arrested for the offence of murder of 4 CAG-570.10 Balasaheb. Vijay has been granted bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge which order is questioned by filing Criminal Application No. 561 of 2010. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the applicant Ganesh in the two applications, the respondent Vijay in one application and the learned APP in all the three applications. With the help of the learned counsel, I have gone through all the relevant documents since the charge-sheets have been filed in both the cases. I have also gone through the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. As far as the application for cancellation of bail granted to Vijay is concerned, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has elaborately discussed the circumstances which prevailed upon her to admit Vijay to bail. There appears to be no error in the conclusion drawn by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It may be recalled that according to the prosecution Balasaheb is alleged to have been murdered after being made to consume poison at the point of a sword after he was forced to write the suicide note. Now if a person has to die because somebody holds a sword at his neck, it is doubtful whether he would agree to write 5 CAG-570.10 a suicide note and then be forced to consume poison. In any case, it would be for the prosecution to establish these circumstances before the trial Court which the trial Court would consider in proper perspective. Even in the case of murder of Balasaheb, statements of witnesses recorded immediately after the incident are in the different tune than the tune which they sing afterwards. This aspect, too, also would be considered by the trial Court uninfluenced by the observations of this Court as well as the Addl. Sessions Judge who admitted Vijay to bail. In view of this, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned APP that Vijay would be able to tamper the witnesses if his bail is not cancelled. The learned APP made vague allegation that Vijay is a politically influential person, without stating as to what was his political power and how he was connected with those in power. In view of this, Criminal Application No.561 of 2010 is rejected. 7. Since the evidence against Vijay as well as Ganesh in respect of murder of Balasaheb and causing disappearance of evidence of the said murder is same, there is no reason why Ganesh should be denied bail in the said 6 CAG-570.10 offence. In view of this, Criminal Application No.3941 of 2010 is allowed and the applicant Ganesh is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety of Rs.25,000/- and executing bond of the like amount. He shall not pressurize the witnesses and shall not enter within the limits of village Gholapwadi, Taluka Indapur, till conclusion of the trial. The applicant-Ganesh shall furnish his residential address to the Court and to the police station. He shall attend Walchandnagar Police Station twice in a week, that is, on Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Saturday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. till the charge-sheet is filed in the Court. Bail before the Magistrate s Court. 8. As far as the application for bail in the rape and murder of Pooja is concerned, there is some material to show that the applicant had indicated his liking for Pooja and Pooja is also alleged to have stated so to her friends. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed the circumstances appearing against the applicant while rejecting the bail sought by the applicant in her order dated 18-1-2010. Without repeating those reasons, it would be sufficient to observe that there is 7 CAG-570.10 enough material collected by the prosecution and placed on the record to show the applicant s involvement in the rape and murder of Pooja. In view of this, Criminal Application No.570 of 2010 is rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)