1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1858 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. Versus Prathviraj S/o Babruwan Bhingole ... Respondent. -------- Shri. K.B. Choudhari Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 30th SEPTEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) This application is filed by the State for seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13-01-2009 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 86/2007 for the offence punishable 2 under Section 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the accused committed murder of his eight month old daughter namely Vaishnavi and caused injuries, assaulted by knife to his wife PW-2 Sangeeta. 3) The original record and proceedings was called. We have perused the same. Prima-facie, we have noticed that the wife of respondent / accused Sangeeta deposed against the accused. We have perused postmortem report of the child Vaishnavi and the evidence of Doctor, even perused the evidence of other witnesses. 4) We have perused the findings recorded by Sessions Judge, Latur. 5) Disturbing for us to know that the alleged incident had taken place on 29-10-2004. The prosecution claims to have recorded statements by the investigating Officer Mr. Vinayak who thereafter was transferred from Chakur on 15-12-2004. Further investigation, according to the witness was carried out by Police Inspector Mr. Wadje who had forwarded the 3 mudemal articles to the Chemical Analyser, Aurngabad. The accused according to the witness was arrested on 29-08-2007 and charge sheet was filed on 07-09-2007. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that as accused was absconding he could not be arrested by police. We do not find any justifiable reason with the investigating officer not to file charge sheet till the accused was arrested. The notion is that charge sheet could be filed only after accused was arrested is required to be correctly by the investigating agency. The delay would defeat the process of justice. 6) Prima facie we find that the leave sought by the State to file appeal is required to granted. 7) Leave granted. 8) Appeal is admitted. 9) Action under Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code shall be taken forthwith. Respondent be arrested consequent to execution of warrant and be produced before the trial 4 Court. The respondent shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount. The respondent shall attend the Court once in a month, untill further orders. 10) Registry to forward copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Latur who shall forward copy of this order to Police Inspector Mr. Wadje wherever he is posted. 11) Criminal Application 1858 of 2009 stands disposed of. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) sdm/ 1858.09