( 1 ) 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. 1152 of 2008 (For Bail) Umesh Ganapati Kumbhar ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Shekhar A. Ingawale, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr S. R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor with Mr S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 06.05.2008. DATED : 06.05.2008. DATED : 06.05.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Perused application and material available on record. 3. The applicant-accused is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with C.R. No.106 of 2008 registered by the Jaisingpur Police Station under ( 2 ) Sections 302, 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. FACTUAL MATRIX:- --------------- 4. The factual matrix reveal that the First Information Report is lodged by one Shahazai Jamal Bandwal on 4.12.2007. F.I.R. states that she is having 15 acres of land at village Shirgaon. The said land is in the name of her cousin Razikhan Bagsal and her mother Smt. Chamanbi Amin Bagsar. However, there is a dispute pending in the Civil Court at Jaisingpur between the Maulla Bagsar and her mother in respect of the said land. 5. It is further alleged in the complaint that on the day of incident when the complainant alongwith her sister and others was carrying out agricultural operations, the accused-Himmat Bagsar, Bahadur Bagsar both their friend one Umesh Kumbhar came to her field at about 1:30 p.m. and started cutting standing crop. At that time, when the complainant and her sister ( 3 ) questioned the accused, they started abusing them. 6. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that at about 2:15 p.m. when her brother Asif Bagsar came in the field and questioned the accused with respect to the cutting of the crops standing in the field, accused Bahadur Bagsar assaulted her brother with a sickle which he was holding in his hand for cutting standing crops. Asif sustained bleeding injuries on his chest. He fell down. Thereafter, all accused started assaulting Asif with kicks and fist blows. When the complainant and her sister intervened, accused Himmat Bagsar assaulted the complainant with the sickle in his hand on her wrist causing injury. All accused persons also assaulted her with kicks and fist blows and thereafter ran away from the spot. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that due to the sickle blow given by the accused Bahadur Bagsar deceased succumbed to the said injuries and died. That is how the F.I.R. came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant. 7. The applicant, after registration of the ( 4 ) crime, moved application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisingpur, which came to be rejected by order dated 7.1.2008 passed in Bail Application No. 6 of 2008. The applicant has now approached this Court for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant, during the course of hearing brought to my notice the post-mortem report conducted by Dr R. M. Deshmukh on the dead body of the deceased Asif Rajekhan dated 4.1.2008. In Column No. 17 of the said post-mortem report doctor has stated that "brought weapon - sickle, having blood marked, impression matches facture depth of injury". (Emphasis supplied) 9. It is the case of the prosecution that one of the accused- Bhadur Bagsar on 7.12.2007 has made voluntary disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 10. On the basis of above facts, submission was made that if the sickle was produced before ( 5 ) the doctor at the time of post-mortem conducted on 4.1.2008, then the alleged voluntary disclosure panchnama dated 7.12.2007 has to be treated sham and bogus document created by I.O. 11. When the above argument was advanced before me I called upon the A.P.P., to explain as to how it is possible to discover weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which was very much available on 4.1.2008 at the time of post-mortem, especially, when the said weapon was shown to the doctor at the time of post mortem on 4.12.2007 and who has to opine that the injuries can be caused by the weapon produced. 12. The learned A.P.P. sought time to take instructions from the I.O. Accordingly, time was granted. 13. On 15.5.2008 Mr S.R. Borulkar, learned Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor appeared and brought to my notice a letter dated 5.5.2008 written by him to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai and the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, wherein he has categorically ( 6 ) written that the voluntary disclosure panchnama dated 7.12.2007 is a sham and bogus document created by the Investigating Officer. He has also opined that the person responsible for these acts are liable to be punished under Sections 192, 194, 198, 199 of the Indian Penal Code and that the person responsible for these acts should be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences or under any other appropriate provisions of law. Mr Borulkar has also recommended that the disciplinary action under the Maharashtra (Discipline and Appeals) Rules against the said Investigating Officer- Mr Rajkumar Shinde-A.P.I.can be initiated. 14. In the wake of aforesaid circumstances, in my considered view, the applicant is entitled for bail. Accordingly, he be enlarged on bail on executing P.R.bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety on following terms and conditions. a] The applicant detained in connection with C. R. No.106 of 2007 registered with Jaysingpur Police Station, District Kolhapur be enlarged on bail in the sum ( 7 ) of Rs.10,000/- with one surety to make of the said amount. b] The applicant shall attend concerned Police Station once between 1st to 5th date of every month till further order. c]The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. d] Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as finding or expression on merits of the case at the time of trial. 15. At the same time, conduct of the Investigating Officers; namely, Shri Rajkumar Shinde, A.P.I. of Jaysingpur and Shri K. M. Desai, A.S.I. of Jaysingpur Police Station is liable to be enquired into. If the police who is supposed to provide the protection to the society start manufacturing and/or creating false ( 8 ) evidence, then what would happen to the criminal jurisprudence, is a serious question, which needs serious consideration. In this view of the matter, the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur is directed to personally look into the matter to make enquiry and take appropriate action including prosecution of the Investigating Officers under the Maharashtra Discipline and Appeals) Rules. 16. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur with a copy thereof to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai to submit Action Taken Report (A.T.R.) in compliance of this order. 17. The learned A.P.P. undertakes to communicate this order to both these Authorities. 18. Criminal Application No. 1152 of 2008 stands disposed of. However, for the receipt of ( 9 ) the report from the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur matter to come up on board on 10.6.2008 treating it as part heard. 19. Stand over to 10th June, 2008. (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.)