1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2675/2009 (Uttam Kanhoji Paikrao vs. The State ) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Suraj R.Bagal, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 14/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicant and learned A.P.P. extensively. 2. In a matter under Sections 302. 376 read with Section 34 of IPC in crime No.38/2009, the accused/applicant Uttam Kanhoji Paikrao seeks bail. It is contended by the learned Counsel, the role attributed to the accused/applicant Uttam will not lead beyond infraction of Section 201 of IPC as the accused, at the most, has coordinated in movement 2 of the dead body from one place to another with the main culprit, husband of the decreased, and creating a scene of sexual assault to the deceased. The Counsel, therefore, urged that since the accused is in custody from 1st of July, 2009 and there is nothing against the accused, he should be enlarged on bail. 3. The matter is at the stage of investigation. Chargesheet is yet to be filed. Statement of one witness Siddharth shows that the main accused accompanied the applicant Uttam. There were altercations between deceased Vanita and her husband Shridhar. The witness Siddharth could see the altercation between said Shridhar and his wife Vanita and also heard process of strangulation to said Vanita and she having fell down. The witness asked his brother Shridhar as to why he has done so but he was commanded not to say anything. Thereafter witness allegedly verified whether Vanita was alive and he found that her breathing 3 was arrested, she was dead. Thereafter, it was the accused/applicant Uttam with Shridhar, in the midnight, when there was raining took the dead body of Vanita outside the room and they returned home after one and half hour, informed the witness that they have disposed of dead body at the bushes and again the witness was warned not to disclose it to anybody. This conduct of the accused/applicant speaks volumes against him. He has screened the offender, harboured him and activated in commission of the offense. Since the motive still is to be indicated as the event of sexual assault is surfacing, it is only the ultimate investigation that will give threadbare picture, consequently, at this stage, I do not find any reason to grant bail to the accused/applicant. Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/2675-09crapl