1 Cri.A.2554.11+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2554 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2624 OF 2011 1. Vijay S/o Eknath Dabhade and another R/o Sillod, Tq. Sillod District Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri. Sudarshan J. Salunke,Advocate for Applicants. Shri.S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Shri S.B.Gastgar,Advocate for original complainant. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 4TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. First application is filed for anticipatory bail, in Crime No. 52 of 2011, registered with Sillod Police Station, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, of the Indian Penal Code. Second application is filed for anticipatory bail in Crime No. 53 of 2011, registered with same Police Station, for the offence punishable under sections 307, 143, 147, 148, of the Indian Penal Code 2 Cri.A.2554.11+1 and for the offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Papers of investigation are made available by the APP. Both sides are heard. 2. Both Crimes are registered on the basis of reports given by Ranjeetsingh Ajabsingh Kayate, brother of deceased Jalansingh. Jalansingh had some business transactions with Raju Pakhare, applicant No.2 and they together had run Hotel for about one year, prior to date of incident. As there was some dispute, they got separated and then the deceased and complainant started running other Hotel. 3. Two incidents are described in two reports. First incident described is dated 04.05.2011. On that day, as deceased had called complainant to the Hotel by informing that present applicants were given threat of life. Complainant had reached to the Hotel. The applicants had come there with associates and weapons like sword. The assault was made on the complainant and his brother, but resistance was offered by the complainant and his brother and when the side of accused was over powered, side of the accused left the place. It is case of the complainant that on that occasion, due to fear of the accused and as they wanted to run hotel and do the business peacefully they did not take further action and some meditation was done by the Police. 3 Cri.A.2554.11+1 4. On 30.05.2011, in the early hours dead body of Jalansingh was found on road. When the complainant went to the spot, he noticed that there were serious injuries on dead body. The complainant suspected that out of the previous dispute and quarrel, which had taken place on 04.05.2011 the applicants had finished his brother. He gave reports in respect of both incidents dated 04.05.2011 and 30.05.2011 and crime came to be registered accordingly. 5. There is copy of MLC showing that the complainant had sustained injuries in the first incident and he had received treatment in Government Hospital on 05.05.2011. P.M. report shows that so many injuries were found on the dead body, including multiple abrasions and lacerated wounds. There was fracture of skull and there was damage to the brain of the deceased. Death took place due to head injury. Injuries were found all over the body. Today, some photographs of the spot of offence came to be shown to the Court, as spot panchnama is not available. It was submitted on behalf of prosecution that no damage was caused to the motorcycle and hence deceased did not meet with an accident. There are photographs showing that dead body was lying on one side of the road with one chappel, and there were injuries on head and front portion of the dead body. But post mortem report shows that injuries were on all over the body and 4 Cri.A.2554.11+1 also blood had spread near spot, where the dead body was found and there was no blood on the road. No marks of accident can be seen in the photographs. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it prima facie appears that custodial interrogation is necessary. Without custodial interrogation the truth cannot be unearthed. It is not fit case to grant anticipatory bail in both the applications. So, both the applications stand rejected. It is, however, clarified that the above observations are prima facie and the trial court need not be influenced with the same while conducting the trial. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK