MP 1 BA1732_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1732 OF 2011 Ramesh @ Digya @ Digambar Ganpat Bhosale ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal and Mr. Abhijeet Kadam, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr.Y.S. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER 2011 P. C. : The applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime No.268 of 2011 registered with Panvel City Police Station, District Raigad for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 397 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.05.2011, after completing formal pooja and certain other functions, at about 11.30 p.m., members of family of Balaram Fulore, resident of Ganeshwadi Palaspegaon, Taluka Panvel went to sleep. When the family members were sleeping, some dacoits committed house-trespass by making entry in the house and assaulted the inmates of the house. Son and wife of Balaram, namely Sandip and Ramabai, were killed by the dacoits. Balaram himself and his daughter Swapnali @ Pinky were seriously injured and became unconscious. Next morning, they were taken to the hospital. It was revealed that the dacoits had broken the almirah and taken away property of Rs.1,10,000/-. Statement of Kum.Swapnali @ Pinky was recorded on 08.07.2011. It appears that a night lamp was on when this incident occurred and she had seen the culprits. Though she was not knowing them, she had given description of those persons. Balaram had become unconscious and regained consciousness only in the hospital. MP 2 BA1732_11 3. During the investigation, it was revealed that, in all, eight culprits were involved in the commission of dacoity and murder. Five culprits are said to be absconding and three persons were arrested. Present applicant is one of them. No recovery was made from the present applicant. According to the prosecution, he had made a confessional statement leading to showing the spot of the incident. As that statement did not lead to discovery or recovery of any material fact or evidence and as the spot of the incident was already known, that statement is inadmissible in law. Learned APP, on instructions, informs that Police Inspector Ramesh Ghadwale was Investigating Officer. It appears that the Police Inspector Ramesh Ghadwale of Panvel City Police Station had shown the photographs of the accused persons to Swapnali and confirmed that the persons, who were arrested, were the culprits. However, he did not bother to hold the test identification parade to confirm that they were the culprits. Swapnali is the only eyewitness, who had seen the culprits and who had given the description of the culprits. The Investigating Officer failed to hold the test identification parade and filed charge-sheet only by recording the statement of Swapnali after showing her the photographs of the culprits. It shows either inefficiency or carelessness of the Investigating Officer. It appears that he did not take the matter seriously and just completed the formality of filing the charge-sheet of the case. Taking into consideration the material on record, I find no substance to refuse bail to the present applicant. 4. Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount on condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall also report at the Panvel City Police Station, District Raigad on the first and third Sunday of every month between 4.00 to 6.00 p.m. till the end of the trial. MP 3 BA1732_11 5. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Police Commissioner, Navi Mumbai to take appropriate action against the Investigating Officer P.I. Ramesh Ghadwale for failing to investigate the case properly. (J. H. BHATIA, J)