1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2010 Bhausaheb Sarjerao Jagtap, Age-25 years, Occu-Education, R/o.Dattnagar, Loni Taluka, Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, At Present, R/o.Dhorjalgaon, Tq.Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.149/2009, registered in Shevgaon Police Station for the offence punishable u/s. 304, 341, 342, 363 and 376 of IPC, in which he came to be arrested on 07/12/2009 at 10.30 p.m. from his residential premises. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Ramnath Dagadu on 07/12/2009 around 5.15 p.m., wherein it is alleged that in the afternoon, his daughter Dipali had been to the hospital, as she was complaining about severe pain in her abdomen. Thereafter, complainant alongwith his wife had been to their field for agricultural operation. Around 1.30 p.m., message was received from the nephew of the complainant that daughter of the complainant is serious. On receipt of this message, when they returned back to their residential premises, they found that the daughter was detained in the room of applicant which was locked from outside. The lock was removed with the key which was in possession of the applicant and found Dipali inside the room where she complained that she was forcibly detained by the applicant. As she was suffering from pain, she was taken to the hospital, but on her way to the hospital, around 3.30 p.m., Dipali succumb to death. 4. On the day of death of Dipali itself, in the evening, offence came to be registered against applicant and in that connection applicant was arrested in that night. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is urged on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present offence by the father of Dipali, who is complainant and he has not done anything. 5. Papers of investigation shows that on 08/12/2009, clothes on the person of the deceased which were collected at the time of 3 conducting the post mortem, found certain while colour substance on her nicker. On that day, clothes of the applicant were also seized which were also found some while colour substance, appeared to be the semen. At the place of offence, i.e. in the room where Dipali was detained one empty Nirodh was also found. Statement of two witnesses appeared to be recorded on 08/12/2009, which discloses that these two independent eye witnesses saw that applicant was dragging Dipali inside the room and after some time, he alone came out of that room, and that room was locked from outside. Prima facie all this evidence goes to show the involvement of present applicant in the heinous offence u/s. 376, 304 of The IPC. The investigation is in progress. If the applicant can do all these acts in broad day light, then there is every likelihood that he may tamper the witnesses of prosecution if he will release on bail. Application sans any merit, hence rejected. 6. These observations are based on prima facie evidence. Trial court not to influence with these observations, if any application for regular bail is submitted, after filing of the charge sheet. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.450-10