IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 727 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 727 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 727 OF 2008 1. Shri Vilas Namdev Pathare. 2. Shri Santosh Baban Dighe. 3. Shri Mukund Namdev Pathare. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. K.S.Patil for the applicants. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 3rd July 2008. DATED: 3rd July 2008. DATED: 3rd July 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application, the applicants- accused are seeking bail in C.R.No.I-89/2007 registered with Mangaon Police Station, district- Raigad for the offences registered under sections 302, 394, 363, 364, 341 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) on the basis of complaint lodged by one Shri Namdeo Sakharam Pathare. 3. The complainant is a father of applicant Nos.1 and 3. The allegations are made in the F.I.R. that the accused committed murder of the stepmother of applicant Nos.1 and 3. The complainant on subsequent thought realising that his sons are likely to be implicated in the offence appears to have filed affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class that it is not a case of murder but mere accident. Based on the F.I.R., the applicants were arrested on 2nd November, 2007. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the material on record justifies the case of accident rather than case of murder. In the trial Court, the defence which was sought to be put up was under section 304A of I.P.C. 5. Having gone through the various statements, the prosecution story put up in the F.I.R., number of telling circumstances have surfaced on record. The investigating officer was asked to file affidavit on certain aspects of the matter. Accordingly, the affidavit is filed on record. The offence and gravity thereof is serious. 6. The principles at the bottom of discretionary relief provided under sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. as enunciated by the Apex Court in Satish Jaggi, v. v. v. State of Chhatisgarh, AIR 2007 (Supp) 256 - 3 - make it manifest that while granting bail in serious offences, it is necessary to see the gravity of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of the society. At the premature stage of considering the application for bail, it is not required to go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. 7. Considering the foregoing discussion, and the circumstances available on record, it cannot be held that the prosecution has no evidence, whatsoever, against the applicants. At this stage of considering bail application, the Court is not at all required to find out as to whether the evidence is sufficient to infer guilt of the applicants or not. It is enough if sufficient grounds are shown to connect the applicants- accused with the offence. The accused are involved in the offence, which is grave and serious, as such do not have moral right to seek benefit of the discretionary relief. 8. The applicant Nos.1 and 3 are the sons of the complainant. If the applicants are released on bail, the possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence cannot be ruled out. Under these - 4 - circumstances, I find it difficult to entertain this application. The view taken by the Court below while rejecting application for bail cannot be faulted with. 9. In the result, application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE