1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2601 of 2010 (Barku Rangnath Tupe vs. State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.A.S.Barlota, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.P.More, APP for the respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE:21-7-2010 P.C.:- 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with Crime No.I-10/2010, registered in Gangapur Police Station of district Aurangabad in which he came to be arrested on 21st Jan., 2001 in which after investigation is over chargesheet is filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur on 17.4.2010 and, thereafter, case is committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No. 2 112/2010. 2. Heard Counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. This Court had an occasion to go through the entire papers of investigation as chargesheet is already filed. The applicant is the brother of the deceased Rajendra. It appears that the said Crime came to be registered on the complaint of the wife of the deceased Radhabai about the incident which took place in the night between 20th of Jan. and 21st of Jan. The applicant was driving his own vehicle. It appears, in the evening of 20th Jan., he left the residence along with his vehicle. The complaint further discloses that the deceased received a call on his cellphone around 11 to 11.30 p.m. and, thereafter, without disclosing anything deceased left the premises along with the tool kit, did not return during night hours. Hence, wife of the deceased informed about non return of her husband to another 3 brother-in-law Bansi. Thereafter, the family members of the deceased tried to trace the deceased and located dead body of the deceased on Gangapur- Aurangabad road near one Kokan Agro Factory. As the dead body of the deceased was located, offense of murder was registered against unknown person, for unknown reasons. 3. Papers of investigation disclosed that after lodging the complaint, Police party visited the spot along with sniffer dog where persons had gathered, including the applicant. As the sniffer dog pounced on the person of applicant, on suspicion, the applicant was arrested in connection with this offense. 4. Perusal of the papers of investigation, particularly, injury certificate as well as post mortem notes, demonstrates that death of the deceased is homicidal death. Further, it further demonstrates that the case in this 4 Crime rests on circumstances. Perusal of the papers of investigation project the circumstances against the applicant - about the statement of two witnesses who noticed that the vehicle driven by the applicant was found in front of the factory in which one of the witness traveled along with the applicant. During this traveling, there was exchange of cellphone numbers. Another circumstance is: the disclosure by way of extra judicial confession by the applicant before his father. At this juncture, it is to be made clear that at least at this stage, it cannot be used against the applicant to deny the bail application. The last circumstance is recovery of the iron rod at the instance of the applicant under the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Considering that the case entirely rests on the circumstances - first to link the applicant where the disclosure of the fact as to how the deceased 5 left the residence on receipt of mobile phone. During investigation details about the incoming and outgoing calls on the cellphone of the deceased were called, examined and checked. It did not match with the disclosure of the fact by the complainant in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered. The statement of the witness who traveled with the applicant, the details of the incoming and outgoing calls of the applicant also do not match with the statement of that particular witness who traveled with the applicant. Then the remaining circumstance is the recovery of the iron rod at the hands of this applicant, whether it relates or not relates to the accused, much depends upon the Chemical Analyzer's report but, on other evidence. If it is so, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail, considering the overall effect of the evidence collected during investigation. 6 Hence order: ORDER (a) Application allowed. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount. After release on bail, the applicant not to contact prosecution witnesses. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR ) JUDGE ... agp/2601-10crapl