1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 248 OF 2011 Ashok Ramesh Kodape Vs. State of Maharashtra P.S.O. P.S. Wadgaon Road Yavatmal Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri F. T. Mirza Adv for applicant. Shri Bhagde APP for non applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. Dated: 6 th JUNE, 2011. . The applicant/accused against whom offence being Crime No. 249 of 2010 under Section 302, 341 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is registered with the Police Station Wadgaon Road Yavatmal- is seeking his release on bail pending trial. It is the prosecution case that deceased Yogesh Palkundwar had married a girl by name Namrata Mishra . The other co-accused Mahesh Murab and Sunil Pali belonged to the caste to which Namrata belongs. Because of the intercaste marriage the accused Mahesh and Sunil were having grudge with the deceased. On 05.09.2010 at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., the incident occurred in Aathawdi Bazar Yavatmal. The deceased came to the spot riding his motorcycle. Accused 2 persons including the applicant/accused assaulted him with knife, stone and gupti. Eye witnesses namely Nilesh Ashok Hanwat lodged F. I. R. giving names of 4 accused persons excluding the name of present applicant/accused. During investigation it was revealed that amongst the assailants applicant/accused was present and participated in assaulting the deceased. This was revealed through the statements of Mangesh and Nilesh. In the supplementary statement of Nilesh it was clarified that by mistake he omitted the name of the present applicant. Autopsy conducted over the body of the deceased revealed as many as 26 injuries on the person of deceased. Injuries were in the nature of incised wounds, abrasions and stab wounds. Bail application moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Yavatmal has been rejected on 09.12.2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made mention of the statements of Mangesh , Nilesh and Nitin in which they had attributed role to the present applicant/accused. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that omission of the name of the applicant/accused in the F. I. R., primafacie shows that he was not involved in the crime. According to him since the statements of the other witnesses came to be recorded on the next date it appears to be an after thought case. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the statements of Nilesh, Mahesh and Nitin. Their presence on the spot 3 does not appear doubtful. Categorically, they stated about the role played by the applicant/ accused in assaulting the deceased. At this stage the process of scanning the evidence can not be undertaken. It is probable that inadvertently or for any other reason the first informant did not name the applicant/accused in his complaint. It is also not the case that after a long delay the name of applicant/accused came to be mentioned. The other evidence is recovery of blood stained clothes, of course, the C. A. report is yet to be received. Considering the eye witness account, involvement of the applicant/accused in the offence of murder of Balya @ Yogesh Palkundwar is made out. Gravity and nature of the offence does not warrant release of the applicant/accused on bail. Application is thus rejected. JUDGE svk 4 5 6