MP 1 BA1149_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1149 OF 2011 Yogesh Bhau Gurav ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. Mr. M. B. Zanwar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 P. C. : The applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime No.9 of 2010 registered with Dattawadi Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Kishor Marne had entered into criminal conspiracy with several persons. About two years prior to the incident, the deceased Kishor was fired at but was saved. The incident occurred on 11.01.2010. Kishor Marne and his friend- Vijay Marne, who lodged the FIR, had been to Nilayam Theatre to see a film and after that, at about 6.00 p.m., they went to Platinum Hotel. The owner of that hotel was a friend of the deceased Kishor. When Kishor, Vijay and their friend Bharat and the owner of Hotel were chit-chatting, accused Datta Gole and Munna Shaikh along with one more person came in the hotel and straight went to the table where Kishor and his friends were sitting. Datta Gole, Munna Shaikh and their companion assaulted Kishor. Munna Shaikh allegedly assaulted on abdomen of Kishor with Koyta or sickle. Datta Gole took out a revolver and fired at Kishor. Datta Gole and another companion were also firing inside and outside of the hotel. Kishor was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. MP 2 BA1149_11 The first informant – Vijay Marne came to know from one Anant Hedav that about 7-8 persons had ran away from the hotel after the incident. 3. According to the prosecution, present applicant Yogesh was the companion of Datta Gole and Munna Shaikh, and that, he was armed with the revolver and that he had also fired. It is also contended that the sickle (koyta) and pistol were recovered from him. In the statement of Vijay, which was treated as F.I.R., name of the present applicant was not given as he was not aware about his name. According to prosecution, one Anant @ Chaitanya Nana Hedav, who was an eyewitness, has given the name of present applicant Yogesh as a companion of Datta Gole, and according to him, Yogesh was also having pistol as well as a blood-stained sickle (koyta) in his hand. According to prosecution, there was also a CCTV operating in the hotel where the incident had occurred, and in the footage, the whole scene has been recorded. However, the said CCTV footage is not available for the perusal of the Court nor any report is received about it from the Expert. Ballistic Expert report and CA report are also not available to show that the weapon seized from the present applicant was used or that any of the injuries found on the person of the deceased was caused by these weapons. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the statement of the said Anant Hedav recorded on 12.01.2010, only first name Yogesh is given, possibly because he might not be knowing father’s name, surname or other description of the concerned culprit. Other witnesses were not knowing even the first name of the present applicant. Though the test identification parades were held on 16.01.2010 and 10.03.2010, the present applicant was not required to be identified by any other witnesses. Even though the incident had occurred about one year and ten months before and as the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet is filed, the prosecution case, as of today, does not go beyond the statement of Anant MP 3 BA1149_11 Hadav that one Yogesh was a companion of Datta Gole and Munna Shaikh. 5. After perusal of the investigation papers and the charge-sheet, it appears that it was gruesome murder of Kishor caused by firearms and other sharp and cutting weapons. From the present applicant, a koyta as well as a pistol were recovered. Besides that, certain clothes on his person were allegedly recovered. As per the Seizure Panchnama, there were blood stains on his jeans pant. In spite of certain drawbacks in the investigation noted above, at least witness Anant Hadav had seen the assailant and his name is given as Yogesh and there is also a recovery of weapons and clothes from the present applicant Yogesh. Taking into consideration the material on record and the brutal murder caused by 30 injuries with sharp and cutting weapons and firearms, in my opinion, it will be dangerous to grant bail to the present applicant. If he is granted bail, life of the eyewitness Anant Hadav may be in danger. 6. Therefore, the bail application stands rejected. 7. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this application and will not influence the decision of the case. (J. H. BHATIA, J)