IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4260 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4260 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4260 OF 2008 1. Vinod Bramhanand More, 2. Pramod Bramhanand More, 3. Mohan Pandhari Shinde ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundergi, Senior Counsel with Mr.V.V. Purwant i/b. Ms.Amrapali Kasabe for the Applicants. Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for the Original Complainant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4261 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4261 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4261 OF 2008 1. Raju @ Rajendra Pandurang Dhanave, 2. Sanjay Shivaji Shinde, 3. Arjun @ Appu Bali Kale ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.V.V. Purwant i/b. Ms.S.R. Choudhari for the Applicants. Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for the Original Complainant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2009 DATED : JANUARY 28, 2009 DATED : JANUARY 28, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, the learned APP for the State and the - 2 - learned Counsel for the original complainant. 2. On 13th August, 2008, a complaint under Sections 304A, 279 and 427 of the IPC was lodged at that Akkalkot North Police Station vide C.R.No.124/2008. In the said complaint, it was alleged that one jeep had ramped into a motorcycle and two persons riding the said motorcycle died on the spot. The occupants of the jeep ran away. Thereafter, the son of Ankush More filed the complaint alleging that he suspected that the present applicants were responsible for the death of those two persons and they had entered into a conspiracy to eliminate Ankush More. The prosecution case is that the father of applicants no.1 and 2 was murdered by Ankush More and others sometime in 1999 and they were convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Against the said order, they preferred an appeal in this court and the applicant and one Shaikh were acquitted. It is alleged that the present applicants had taken a oath to take revenge of the death of their father by eliminating the deceased Ankush More and had accordingly gave a contract to kill him. - 3 - Prosecution case is that in furtherance of the said conspiracy, a jeep was purchased in the name of some other person and the monies were paid by the present applicant and others. Further the prosecution case is that other persons had overheard the applicants plotting to kill Ankush More. On the basis of the complaint filed by the son of Ankush More, an offence was registered under the provisions of Sections 302, 120B, 427 read with 34 of the IPC. 3. Shri Mundergi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the only material against the present applicants was in the form of the statement of a co-accused and statements of villagers who had overheard the applicants entering into conspiracy to kill Ankush. The statement of owner of the jeep also was recorded in which he had stated that the present applicants alongwith the person in whose name the jeep was purchased, had met him and had paid him the amount and himself named the present applicants. It is submitted that however, the said person has not identified the present applicants as the persons who had - 4 - visited his place alongwith purchaser of the jeep 4. The learned Counsel, Shri Mane, appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the witnesses had received threats from the other accused who have been released on bail. It is submitted that if the applicants are released on bail, they will threaten the witnesses. 5. Since there is no direct evidence implicating the present applicants and the entire evidence is in the nature of circumstantial evidence alleging conspiracy, in my view, the applicants, under the circumstances, are entitled to be released on bail. Merely, because motive has been established by the prosecution, that alone is not sufficient to establish that the applicant was directly or indirectly responsible for the death of the deceased. The applicants, therefore, deserve to be released on bail. 6. The applicants be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one or two sureties in the like - 5 - amount for the aforsaid offence. The applicants shall not enter Akkalkot Taluka during the pendency of the trial and shall report to the nearest police station from their new residence. The applicants shall give their new residential address to the Superintendent of Jail before their release. The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten any of the witnesses. If any complaint is received by the police, the bail granted to the applicants shall be cancelled. 7. The application is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. 8. The trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made by this court while granting bail since it is not a finding on merits. 9. In Criminal Application No.4261/2008, the only allegation against these applicants is that they used to visit the house of Balasaheb More and the applicants are not, admittedly, connected with the deceased father of applicant nos.1 and 2. That being the position, the - 6 - applicants also are entitled to be released on bail on the same terms and conditions. The application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)