BA-441-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.441 OF 2011 Amin Ibrahim Shaikh ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Laxmipuri Police Station, Kolhapur ... Respondent Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 8 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, and Mrs. Mulekar, the learned APP for the Respondent. 2. The Applicant and two others are alleged to have committed the murder of one Mangesh @ Pintu Misal. One of the said two - Nadim Rafiq Naikwadi - has been released on bail, while the other - Sandip Raghunath Patil - is in custody. Mr. Mundargi fairly concedes that the case of the Applicant is not on par with the said co-accused who has been released on bail. He, however, submits that the case against the Applicant and other accused being based BA-441-11.sxw 2 Dixit solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, as are reflected from the Charge Sheet, are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case against this Applicant. 3. The dead body of one Mangesh @ Pintu Misal was found lying in a field at about 10:30 a.m., on 22nd February, 2010. This was reported to the First Informant, who is the brother of the said Mangesh Misal, by one Ramesh Khade. The brother Rakesh Misal then lodged a report, which was treated as the First Information Report, at about 14:05 hrs. That the said Mangesh Misal died a homicidal death cannot be doubted or disputed in view of the injuries on his body. 4. Mr. Mundargi submitted that within about half an hour from the registration of the F.I.R., the Applicant and the other two accused are shown to have been arrested at the S.T. Stand, Kolhapur. He has drawn my attention to the Arrest Panchanama dated 22nd February, 2010 and a report made by the Inspector of Police, Shahupuri Police Station to the Inspector of Police, Laxmipuri Police Station in that connection. What Mr. Mundargi wanted to convey thereby is that the version of the Investigating Agency is suspicious. However, I do not find anything suspicious in this aspect in as much as the BA-441-11.sxw 3 Dixit Applicant and the other accused were apparently arrested on the basis of the secret information received by the Police. 5. With the assistance of the learned Advocate and the learned APP, I have glanced through the Charge Sheet and I have found that there is material to indicate that the deceased was last seen along with the Applicant and the said Sandip Patil, the co-accused. It also appears that the deceased and the other accused had gone to Kalamba, where they purchased liquor. Though there is no recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of the Applicant, it appears that certain incriminating articles were recovered at the instance of the said Sandip Patil. It cannot be ignored that there is material to indicate that the Applicant was also there along with Sandip Patil and the deceased when they left the house of the deceased. Thus, that certain incriminating articles were recovered from the co-accused Sandip Patil is a circumstance which is relevant against the present Applicant also. 6. It also appears that the Applicant and the other accused were not available in their house in the night of 21st February, 2010. BA-441-11.sxw 4 Dixit 7. There is also material to indicate that the said Sandip Patil and the Applicant, who are stated to be his friend, had some motive to do away with the deceased. It also appears that some extra judicial confession was made by the co-accused Sandip Patil, in which he implicated himself and also the present Applicant. 8. Considering the totality of the material against the Applicant, it cannot be said that there exists no prima facie case. When such is the position, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on bail. 9. The Bail Application is rejected. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]