cra2051.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2051 OF 2011 Dadarao s/o Digambarrao Gaikwad, Aged-23 years, Occu: Student, R/o-Borgaon(Sudha), Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Bhokar, Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.S.S. Choudhari Advocate for Applicant. Shri.S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondent. ... CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 30TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Application is filed for bail, in Crime No.41 of 2011 registered with Police cra2051.11 2 Station, Bhokar for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The A.P.P. has made the papers of investigation available. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Surekha Yedke, widow of the deceased. She has contended that on 11th March, 2011, there was small function arranged in the house of her brother in law and after serving food to the invitees, when her husband was collecting the articles, present Applicant and others came there and they picked up quarrel by questioning as to how the function was arranged by them. The Applicant and the persons of his side became angry only due to the function which was arranged by the brother of the deceased. Allegations are made that present Applicant and others started assaulting the deceased with fist blows and kicks and they virtually dragged the deceased to the house of cra2051.11 3 Vishwambhar, other accused. Allegations are made that Gangaprasad, one accused fetched Katti, a sharp weapon and gave blows of Katti on the head of the deceased and then other accused, Sainath used wooden plank as a weapon and gave blow of wooden plank on the head of the deceased. Allegations are made that when the relatives of the deceased were attempting to interfere, the other persons like present Applicant, were giving threats by showing sticks and they were preventing the witnesses from interfering. 3. The post mortem report shows that there was a fracture of right parietal bone, contused lacerated wound on right parietal region, contusion over occipital region and contusion over middle back oblique. Due to the fracture of bone of head there was hemorrhage inside the brain and death took place due to the head injury. One more injured witness sustained three injuries in the incident. cra2051.11 4 4. The Advocate for the Applicant submitted that no specific role is attributed to the Applicant and so he is entitled to be released on bail. 5. In the F.I.R. there are specific allegations against the Applicant that he along- with other accused, gave fist blows and kicks and he dragged the deceased to the house of Vishwambhar, other accused. There are allegations in the F.I.R. that when the main accused were assaulting the deceased, the others were preventing the witnesses from intervening in the incident. There are statements of so many witnesses to the effect that they were prevented by other accused from intervening in the incident. Threats were given by the other accused showing sticks and so the witnesses could not intervene in the incident. This material is sufficient to make out prima facie case under Section 302 read with cra2051.11 5 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The material collected shows that only due to the circumstance like arranging a small function by the persons of the family of the deceased, attack was made on the deceased. The witnesses could not intervene in the incident due to fear of the other persons. Due to these circumstances, it needs to be presumed that there will be tampering with the prosecution witnesses and there will be danger to the life of the prosecution witnesses. So this Court holds that this is not a fit case for grant of bail and the Criminal Application for bail stands rejected. [T.V. NALAWADE,J.] asb/JUNE11/cra2051.11