1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3557 OF 2010 Mallikarjun @ Mallappa s/o Siddhappa Baswannappa Sunale, aged 40 years, occ. Agril., r/o Kurun Khelgi, Tq.Bhalki, Dist. Bidar (Karnataka State) ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Omerga Police Station, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad ...Respondent ..... Shri R.N.Dhorde, advocate for the applicant Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent/State Shri S.G.Gundre, advocate for intervenor, namely Vishwanath i.e. brother of victim Devidas. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 19 th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri R.N.Dhorde, advocate for the applicant, Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent/State and Shri S.G.Gundre, 2 advocate appearing for intervenor, namely Vishwanath i.e. brother of victim Devidas. 2 At the out set, it is the matter of record that earlier the applicant had preferred Criminal Application No. 1153 of 2010 for grant of bail, but same was dismissed by this court by order passed on 16.4.2010. It also appears that the said application preferred by the applicant for bail was dismissed after completion of investigation and after filing of charge sheet, and apparently, there is no change in circumstances thereafter till filing of the present application except the efflux of time. 3 On the afore said background, learned counsel Shri R.N.Dhorde appearing for the applicant canvassed that the statement of Vishwanath i.e. the brother of deceased Devidas and statement of Santosh i.e. son of victim Devidas do not attribute specific role to the applicant during the commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, and therefore, urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 3 4 Learned A.P.P. Shri Nandedkar and Shri Gundre, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the spot of incident was shown by the applicant under the disclosure statement recorded during the investigation on 1.9.2009, which is a vital incriminating circumstance against the applicant herein. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the victim Devidas was murdered brutally and his body was cut into pieces, and apprehension is posed that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses, since numerous offences have been registered against the applicant, which are pending at Bhalki police station and Khadak-Chincholi police station, and therefore, learned counsel for the respondents urged that present application bears no substance and is devoid of any merits and same be dismissed. 5 Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, admittedly the applicant had preferred earlier application No. 1153 of 2010 seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. 138 of 2009, registered at Omerga police station, District Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, since the applicant was arrested thereunder on 31.8.2009, but same was dismissed by order passed 4 by this court on 16.4.2010 after completion of investigation and after filing of the charge sheet. Apparently, except efflux of time, there is no change in circumstances after dismissal of the said application, and hence, present application for grant of bail deserves to be dismissed. 6 Apart from that, the statement of Vishwanath discloses that there was long standing dispute over agricultural land between the family members, which was pending before the Tahsildar, and co-accused Madhavrao was mediator for the said transaction and Sharanappa was the servant of the applicant herein. It is also alleged that the applicant herein is the master mind behind the said dispute, which is said to be the motive for murder of Devidas. Moreover, sight cannot be lost of the very aspect that the spot of incident was shown by the applicant herein under the disclosure statement recorded during the course of investigation on 1.9.2009, which apparently can be construed as vital incriminating circumstance against the applicant. 7 Moreover, the very aspect cannot be overlooked that various offences have been registered against the applicant and same are pending at Bhalki police station and Khadak-Chincholi 5 police station in Karnataka State bearing C.R. Nos. 31/1999, 126/2005, 40/1999, 14/1997, 56/1999, 98/2000, 82/2004, 43/2005, 53/2006, 29/2007 and 41/2005, as pointed out by learned A.P.P. and learned advocate Shri Gundre for intervenor, and apprehension is posed that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses, and therefore also, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8 In the circumstances, considering the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offences and also considering the incriminating evidence against the applicant and numerous offences registered and pending at aforesaid respective police stations against the applicant and the apprehension posed by the respondents, I am of the view that the applicant has failed to make out the case for grant of bail, and hence, present application stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap3557.10 6