{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3758 OF 2009 Santosh s/o Ambadas Jadhav APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.17/2009 registered with Phulambri police station for an offence punishable u/s 143 to 149, 341, 353, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 (2) (5) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. As notice of this application was already served on the respondent State, the learned APP has made available the papers of investigation for my perusal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. {2} 4. From the perusal of the investigation papers and PM notes it is clear that the victim died homicidal death. Therefore, it is necessary to consider as the whether there is any nexus between the death of the victim and the applicant. The alleged incident, as projected, did happen in the broad day light at around 12.30 to 13,00 hours on 23rd February 2009. The background of the incident, as appears from the papers of investigation, is that the allegation against the deceased was that he was an eve teaser and was behind a girl namely Vaishali Jadhav. It is alleged that on the day of the incident also he teased her and while she was rescuing herself from the clutches of the deceased, the applicant, along with 3 others, prohibited the deceased. At that time the deceased was holding a knife in his hands. Contents of the FIR show that initially the applicant and three others mercilessly beat the deceased and at that time the complainant gave phone call to the police station to save the deceased who was alone and later on was attacked by a mob. The allegations in the complainant as well as statements of the eye witness show that when the police party came at the spot of the incident, the deceased was tied to the electric pole by the applicant and three others and he was attacked by the mob later on. 5. It is tried to be urged that considering the disclosure of the facts even if the the case of the prosecution is accepted, yet there was no previous enmity between the applicant and the deceased. It is also tried to be urged that there was no intention on the part of the applicant and the death occurred due to attack by a mob. 6. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned APP. {3} 7. Considering the entire episode, as is projected from the papers of investigation, it is clear that it is a brutal butchering, which cannot be even termed as a murder. Though the deceased died due to attack by the mob, yet the initial role played by the applicant and 3 others, is specifically described in the complaint, which is also corroborated by the statements of eye witnesses. Considering these aspects, and the fact that if a solitary boy is attacked by a mob and mercilessly beaten and later on kerosene was poured on his person, and considering the role played by the applicant, I am of the considered view that the applicant does not deserve liberty. 8. In the result, the application stands rejected and disposed of accordingly. 9. It is, however, clarified that the above observations are prima facie observations and the trial court shall not be influenced by the same while conducting the trial. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3758-09