{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4091 OF 2009 Ratan Khatrya Padavi APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the State Mr.C.R.Deshpande, Advocate assisting to APP ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 4th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant, who is arrested on 03.11.2009 in connection with CR No.23/2009 registered with Dhadgaon police station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court for his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP, who is assisted by Mr.C.R.Deshpande. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. It appears that an ADR came to be registered at Dhadgaon police station on the report of one Bebibai Vijay Padvi, wife of deceased Vijay, whose dead body was found in a field on 16.04.2009. It is alleged in the compliant that in the evening on 15.04.2009 Vijay had gone for some work and when till late night {2} he did not turn up, the complainant, inquired with one Ramdas and the present applicant. It is alleged that both of them assured her that Vijay would return back, however he was not returned in the night. The complaint discloses that in the morning the complainant came to know that the dead body of her husband was lying in a field. Initially, accused Ramdas, his wife and son were arrested in connection with this offence. It further appears that on 19th May 2009, supplementary statement of the complainant came to be recorded and on the basis of the said supplementary statement, investigation was carried out and the present applicant came to be arrested in connection with the said offence, on 03.11.2009 and since then he is in jail. 4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a nephew of the deceased and he is falsely implicated in the present case, as he is a Zilla Parishad member. It is also urged that there is no recovery at the instance of the present applicant. So also there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence against him and hence he be released on bail. 5. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned APP mainly on the ground that the circumstantial evidence collected during the investigation denotes that the present applicant is mastermind behind the death of said Vijay as the applicant has illicit relations with the wife of deceased Vijay. Learned APP has placed reliance on the information collected from {3} the mobile service provider in respect of the phone calls received on the mobile of the applicant, Ramdas and the complainant. It is urged that when initially the ADR was registered in respect of the death of Vijay, at that time, it was tried to create impression by the applicant that the said death was caused due to excessive drinking. It is also urged that as the brother of the deceased had doubt in respect of the Postmortem conducted on 16.04.2009, at his instance the second postmortem was conducted. The first Postmortem had shown total 5 external injuries and that the skull was not opened. Learned APP has drawn my attention towards the statement of brother of the deceased, where he has stated that when they carried the body of Vijay for postmortem, the applicant had met Dr.Valwi and had asked the brother of the deceased to stay outside the room. The second Postmortem report, which was conducted on 22.05.2009, shows that the skull was opened and injury was found on the internal parts of the skull. The probable cause of death is due to sustaining head injuries. According to learned APP, the present applicant has, from time to time, not only mislead the investigation by informing that as to how the death has occurred but also tried to tamper the prosecution witnesses. In this connection statement of eye witness discloses that Vijay was throttled by Ramdas and Pintya. 6. While connecting all the pieces of evidence, again my attention is drawn towards the call register collected from the service provider, which indicate that on 14th April 2009, there were {4} communications between Ramdas and application on 8 occasions, on 15th there were communications between applicant and complainant on 5 occasions and on 16th there were communications between applicant and Ramdas on 4 occasions. According to learned APP this itself suggests that the applicant is the mastermind behind the death of Vijay. 7. Considering the submissions advanced across the bar and the investigation carried till today, it is clear that the death of Vijay was not due to excessive drinking but the same was due to sustaining head injuries. It prima facie appears that before the alleged incident out side the hut of Pintya as transpired in the statement of wife of Pintya, there is communication between applicant and Ramdas and the same has to be considered in the light of the illicit relations of the applicant with the wife of the deceased. In the premise and in view of the fact that the investigation is in progress, if the applicant is released on bail, then considering the way and manner in which he had mislead the investigation, there are chances that the applicant may interfere in the investigation. In the premise, no case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. In the result, the application stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln4091-09