1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2591 OF 2009 Roshansingh S/o Babusing Mali Versus The State of Maharashtra. *** Mr. M. V. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** 1. Heard the counsel extensively. 2. A bail for the accused in custody from 28th June, 2009 is sought for an offence under section 364 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered by virtue of F.I.R. dated 28th June, 2009 vide Crime No.185 of 2009 of Nanded Rural Police Station. 3. It was contended that one Sagar Bandiwadikar, an employee cum partner with the accused/ applicant is allegedly abducted since 2006. His whereabouts are not known, and could not be located. One Eknath Hanuwate blowed the whistle informing the police by application dated 17th June, 2009 that said Sagar Bandiwadikar is done to death by accused and his corpse is lying buried in the basement of mess of the accused/ applicant. A thorough search was carried. A shirt in decomposed state was found beneath the rubbles which was taken charge. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. It was subsequently on 28th June, 2009 his brother Shekhar Bandiwadekar allegedly was called, he reported the matter to police about kidnapping of his brother Sagar since last at-least more than six years. It was contended that said Sagar abandoned family at his age of 12/13 years in the year 1996 but he could not be located even when there was casualty of demise of other brother Sanjay in 2000. Sagar did not attend the last rites, however, he was in touch with some of his family members up to 2005-06 and thereafter it was discontinued. 5. The investigating papers indicate role attributed to present accused/ applicant by Vijay Shirole, Ashok Madhukar Indurkar, Datta Thakas. Vijay Shirole more or less takes the prosecution to the incident of 2006, how he was man-handled brutally assaulted, how human bones were shown to him buried beneath the floor. The fact remains, inspite of there being police custody of the accused no trace of the abducted person or his corpose or no progress has taken place. 6. The prosecution desire to carry Narco Analysis test for which an application was made but the accused 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. opposed such application and the learned J.M.F.C. Nanded (6th Court) by order dated 13th July, 2009 rejected such prayer, however, observing that investigating officer is directed that if still he desires to subject the accused person to Narco Analysis Test and brain mapping test he should apply for production of accused person by thorough examination by experts with reference to their ailments and possible side effects of drugs injected for the test. It is informed by learned A.P.P. the accused in custody was referred to the experts and the report is awaited. 7. The complicated aspects of the matter indicated herein, refers to ingredients of section 364 of I.P.C. which provides a punishment on proof extending to life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending ten years with fine. The needle of suspicion with all strongness moves only against the accused applicant, as has been highlighted by the witnesses. The report of the alleged bone powder is yet to be received. As investigation is at a crucial stage, the bail is likely to be misused to hamper the investigation and influence the witnesses. Consequently, the request of 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. enlarging the accused on bail is rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:31/07/2009. ans/2591