(1) CRI.APP. 4468.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4468 OF 2010 Shaikh Shahjad S/o. Shaikh Shamim Ahemad, Age : 30 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Zohra Aghadi Nagar, Plot No. 401, Andheri (West), Varsova, Yari Road, Mumbai .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent --- Mr. S.G. Ladda, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State --- CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for bail. 2. The applicant is inhabitant of Saharanpur (U.P.) and temporarily was residing at Aurangabad in Buddhi-lane locality with his sister-in-law. His wife was also residing with him. The husband of his sister-in-law, by name Kaisar Khan S/o Anwar Khan was occupying the tenement situated in the house property of P.W. Rizwana w/o Syed Mukram Shah. The tenement was on the third floor of the house. (2) CRI.APP. 4468.2010 3. The landlady (P.W. Rizwana) and other neighbours of the said tenement noticed in the morning on 4th September, 2008 that the occupants of the tenement including said Kaisar Khan, his wife, the applicant etc. had left the tenement alongwith bag and baggage. It was found that some articles were lying helter-skelter in the tenement and amidst such domestic articles, there was dead body of a woman. The deceased victim had sustained a multiple injuries, including abdominal injuries which resulted into protruding of the intestine. It was evident that the victim met with her death instantaneously and as a result of the brutal assault caused on her. It was ghastly incident of brutal murder of the victim as several injuries were caused to her by means of sharp edged weapon and she was butchered mercilessly. It was suspected however that the victim was one Anju, who was employed by the tenant i.e. Kaisar Khan as a maid servant. Accordingly, the report was lodged with the Police. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The post mortem examination report reveal that there was attempted strangulation before (3) CRI.APP. 4468.2010 the woman was mercilessly assaulted and done to death by causing stab wound on her abdomen. 4. The tenant i.e. Kaisar Khan, his wife, the applicant and his wife were however not traced out during the course of investigation. They were the prime suspects because the incident had occurred in the tenement itself which was abandoned by said Kaisar Khan. It may be mentioned here that uptil now said Kaisar Khan and his wife or wife of the applicant are not traced out and arrested. It does not require mincing of words to infer that they are absconding. 5. The applicant was arrested during course of investigation and has been chargesheeted for the offence of committing murder and making attempt to cause disappearance of the material evidence in connivance with the other co-accused. 6. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is arrested on basis of suspicion. He would submit that there is belated and concocted version of the made servant called Anju which cannot be prima facie (4) CRI.APP. 4468.2010 relied upon to infer complicity of the applicant. He would submit that said Anju herself had dis- appeared from the scene of offence and could not escape the blame. He contended that there is no prima facie corroborative material to infer complicity of the applicant. He therefore urged to grant bail to the applicant. The learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the Application. 7. On merits, it transpires that presence of the applicant at the tenement obtained by Kaisar Khan is prima facie borne out from various statements of the witnesses. The version of daughter of deceased Meerabai, whose identity was lateron revealed after the suspected victim i.e. Anju came back to Aurangabad and approached the Police, would show that the applicant had contacted deceased Meerabai a day earlier and had demanded Rs. 500/- from her. It appears from the Police statements of some of the witnesses including that of Syed Mukram Shah and Rizwana that the applicant stabbed deceased Meerabai alias Mami in the relevant night. The statement of Jyoti Jadhav, who is daughter of deceased Meerabai alias Mami, prima (5) CRI.APP. 4468.2010 facie indicates that the applicant was having sexual relations with one Jyoti Ahire. Her Police statement prima facie shows that on 3.9.2008, at about 4:30 pm, the applicant contacted her mother i.e. Meerabai alias Mami and requested her to give Rs.500/-. It also appears from her statement that on 4.9.2008, the deceased had gone to the tenement of the applicant and his brother-in-law. There was discussion about the payment of amount in pursuance of P.W. Jyoti. Her Police statement shows that Meerabai asked her to go home and told her that she would lateron return to house. She further narrated that since that time her mother did not come back home. 8. True, P.W. Jyoti Jadhav, her father and brother did not give any report to the Police about missing of Meerabai alias Mami. It is important to notice however that they must have realized the trouble which they could have been required to face if such report had been lodged. For, a news was spread to the effect that Anju (maid servant) was brutally murdered in the tenement. Obviously any report about missing of Meerabai or Mami could be (6) CRI.APP. 4468.2010 inferred as her involvement in the alleged crime of causing death of said Anju and without ascertaining the facts, it might have been decided to keep silence for the time being. The Police statement of the made servant i.e. Anju reveals that Meerabai alias Mami was done to death by the applicant in her presence. She narrated as to how the assault was mounted by the brother, wife and sister-in-law of the applicant and he himself tried to strangulate the deceased before stabbing her on the abdomen by means of a big knife used for cutting of beef. Thus, at this juncture, it cannot be said that involvement of the applicant is not clear from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is well settled that the statements of prosecution witnesses cannot be minutely weighed and evaluated at the premature stage. The veracity of the statements of the said witnesses may be considered by the Court of Sessions while deciding the Sessions trial but right now it cannot be said that all of them are giving any false story. Moreover, there appears no particular motive to give such false statement against the applicant. There was no enmity between (7) CRI.APP. 4468.2010 these witnesses and the applicant. He is inhabitant of a remote place i.e. Saharanpur (U.P.) whereas the witnesses are inhabitants of Aurangabad. 9. What prima facie appears from the record is that the applicant is author of the alleged crime. The very fact that the other co-accused are absconding and the applicant is inhabitant of a remote place situated in Uttar Pradesh, gives room to infer that he is likely to flee from the course of justice, if he is released on bail and moreover, if the prosecution story is true one, his presence outside the prison is likely to terrorise the witnesses and particularly P.W. Anju as well as the daughter and son of deceased Meerabai alias Mami. It would be prejudicial to the fair trial of the Sessions case to grant bail to the applicant. 10. Under the circumstances, the Application is dismissed. The observations in this order are only prima facie and may be considered as limited to the extent of the decision of the bail Application. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp