1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1002 OF 2010 1 Ganesh s/o Maruti Phad, age 45 years, occ. Agril., 2 Govind s/o Jagannath Phad, age 25 yrs., occ.agril, Both r/o Dhebewadi, Tq.Gangakhed, District Gangakhed, District Parbhani ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants Shri D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent, assisted by the original complainant. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 5th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants and Shri D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent, assisted by the original complainant. 2 2 This is an application preferred by applicant nos. 1 and 2 seeking bail in connection with CR No. 29 of 2009, registered against them with Pimpaldari police station, District Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, since the applicants were arrested on 24.5.2009 and presently they are under judicial custody. 3 Smt. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, stated that she does not press the present application for applicant no.1 Ganesh Maruti Phad and requested to withdraw the same and prayed that present application be considered for grant of bail to applicant no.2 namely Govind Jagannath Phad. 4 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint of one Nathrao Phad on 23.5.2009 in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on the same day. It is alleged in the said complaint that in all 21 persons including the present applicants assaulted the complainant, his father Keshav and Madhukar. The complaint recites that the complainant, his father Keshav and Madhukar saw the applicants along with others assembled armed with deadly weapons and hence they returned 3 back to their houses. It is further alleged that after some time they came on road as they wanted to go their field. At this juncture, they noticed the accused, along with applicants standing by the side of road, therefore, they ran into the field of one Angad-one of the accused in this offence. It is also alleged that in the field they were surrounded by all the accused and were assaulted with deadly weapons. During the assault, Keshav and Madhukar sustained grievous injuries and they succumbed to the same. 5 On this back ground, learned counsel for the applicants invited my attention to the very contents of the complaint, wherein it is stated that Govind Jagannath Phad i.e. applicant no.2 herein started assaulting complainant’s father namely Keshav by axe and in that context, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the said allegation in the complaint is omnibus and no specific overt act has been attributed against applicant no.2 and it is no where specifically stated in the contents of the complaint that on which part of the body of Keshav, accused Govind assaulted. In that light of the matter, learned counsel for the applicants further invited my attention to the postmortem notes, more particularly column no.17 thereof, wherein it is stated that “CLW with bone penetrating injury 8 x 2 x Deep (Bone) 4 in Mid Parieto occipital region, Brain matter oozing out, age 2ithin 24 hrs. and type of weapon used is hard and sharp object.” Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that omnibus and general allegations made against applicant no.2 cannot be correlated with the injury reflected in column no.17 of the postmortem notes. 6 Learned counsel for the applicants also pointed out that the allegations made against applicant no.1 Ganesh are specific, which disclose that applicant no.1 Ganesh assaulted deceased Keshav on his head by axe and at the most the injury reflected in column no.17 of postmortem notes can be correlated with the said assault. It is also pointed out that column no.17 of the postmortem notes do not indicate any other injury sustained by deceased Keshav. 7 The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and considering the afore said role of applicant no. 2 in the alleged assault, I am of the view that applicant no.2 be enlarged on bail. 8 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 1002 of 2010 is partly allowed in respect of applicant no.2 Govind 5 Jagannath Phad and it is directed that said applicant no.2 Govind Jagannath Phad be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount, on the condition that applicant no.2 shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses, and also on the condition that applicant no.2 shall not enter into Dhebewadi village till conclusion of trial. 9 However, present application in respect of applicant no. 1 Ganesh Maruti Phad stands dismissed as withdrawn. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap1002.10