{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2851 OF 2010 Devidas Sahebrao Patil and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the applicants Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.54/2010 registered with Mehunbare police station, Dist-Jalgaon for an offence punishable u/s 302, 307, 147, 143, 148, 341, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the applicants are in jail since 24.04.2010. It is informed that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 02.07.2010 before JMFC, Chalisgaon. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. {2} 3. This offence is registered on the complaint of one Anil Kumawat, brother of deceased Ravi. It is alleged that deceased Ravi was son in law of the applicants No.1 and 2. It is alleged that as daughter of applicants No.1 and 2 was in love with said Ravi and as she had married with him against the wishes of her parents, the applicants were enraged. It is alleged in the complaint that said Ravi expired during the night on 23.04.2010 while he was returning to his house. Recitals of complaint show that the complainant received information from his brother, who had received the same from another person, who was informed by Aba Saundane. Thus, it is clear that neither the complainant nor his informer are the eye witnesses to the incident of murder of Ravi. 4. During the course of investigation, statement of said Aba Saundane came to be recorded which shows that in the said night he was returning to his house along with one Santosh Koli and at that time he noticed that Ravi was being assaulted by a mob of 7/10 persons, however out of fear he did not stop there. It is also disclosed that Santosh Koli informed him that he had identified one of the assailant as maternal uncle of wife of the deceased. It appears that during the course of investigation statement of said Santosh Koli was also recorded, which states that he came to know one of the assailant from one Santosh Koli. This shows that how in casual manner statements of the witnesses are recorded by the investigating officer. Apart from it during the {3} investigation statements of one Bhagyashree and Vimal Chavan are recorded. Admittedly, Vimal has not witnessed the incident. On perusal of statements of Bhagyashree and Vimal, it is clear that they have not stated that any of the applicant has participated in the incident of assault on deceased Ravi. 5. Statements of Bhagyashree and Vimal further indicate that after the incident of assault on deceased Ravi, Bhagyashree was taken to the house by her parents and was forcibly administered poison. Thus, it is clear that the applicants may be a party who attempted to commit murder of said Bhaygashree. It appears that as said Bhagyashree was not ready to reside with her parents, she is taken to remand home and hence now she is staying in remand home. 6. Learned APP has opposed the bail application on the ground that if the applicants are released on bail, then there is danger to the life of Bhagyashree under the new trend of ‘honour killing’. 7. Admittedly, now said Bhagyashree is staying in a remand home and no one has any access to the said remand home without permission of rector. Considering the facts revealed in the investigation the applicants can be said to be accused for an offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and not u/s 302 of the Penal Code. Thus, the offence for which the applicants {4} are to be prosecuted is not liable for punishment for life imprisonment or death. In the premise and considering the fact that the applicants are behind the bars for more than 4 months coupled with the fact that now the investigation is over and said Bhagyashree is in safe custody of remand home, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. All the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount, if not required in any other offence. The applicants are directed not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The applicants are also directed to attend the Mehunbare police station on 16th and 24 day of each month till disposal of trial against them. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2851-10