BA-947-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.947 OF 2011 Sudhakar Maruti Parab ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' R.C.F. Police Station, Chembur, Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. Satish Mane-Shinde, i/b. Ms. Snehal Khairnar, for the Applicant. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 19 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the Charge-Sheet, a copy of which is annexed to the Bail Application. 3. The Applicant is arrested on 4th February, 2011 on the allegation that he committed murder of one Narayan Dighe. The case of the Investigating Agency is that the said Dighe and the Applicant, both, were working in the B.P.C.L. The Applicant appears to be indulging into illegal acts of money lending. It also appears that he had advanced some money to the said Dighe, but Dighe was not repaying the same in spite of repeated demands. The case is that, therefore, there BA-947-11.sxw 2 Dixit was a quarrel between the Applicant and the said Dighe, and that on 20th January, 2011, the Applicant assaulted him, as a result of which Dighe died. 4. When Dighe died on 20th January, 2011, an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into his death was conducted. 5. The F.I.R. came to be registered on 3rd February, 2011. 6. I have called for the papers in respect of the said inquiry, but only four statements recorded during the said inquiry are shown to me. The report of the inquiry is not shown to me. It appears that, initially, it was thought that Dighe had fainted. The witnesses, who saw him at that time did not express any suspicion that he had been assaulted by some one. 7. There is no statement recorded during investigation which would indicate that the Applicant and the said Dighe were together immediately before Dighe was noticed to have fainted. In fact, the statements recorded during investigation indicate that when an ambulance was called and Dighe was taken to hospital, he was alive. 8. The case against the Applicant is based only on the availability of supposed motive to the Applicant to have a fight with the said Dighe, namely non returning of the amount taken by the said Dighe from the Applicant. Except this, there is nothing to indicate that there was an actual fight. There is no other material to connect the Applicant with the alleged offence. BA-947-11.sxw 3 Dixit 9. Under the circumstances, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. 10. I am informed by the learned APP for the Respondent that charge has already been framed. This has been submitted, apparently, for the purpose of showing that the trial can be expeditiously heard, and that, therefore, there is no necessity to release the Applicant on bail. However, considering the nature of material, on the basis of which the Applicant has been involved in the case, I am inclined to release him on bail. Simultaneously, the trial can be ordered to be expedited. 11. The Bail Application is allowed. 12. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in like amount, on the condition that he shall not contact, meet or approach any of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner, whatsoever. 13. The Applicant shall not enter into the premises or precincts of the B.P.C.L., without the express permission of the Court, or the Investigating Officer. 14. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and endeavour to complete it within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]