SRJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3419 OF 2010 Shri Pravin S. Sonawane .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri Atul Damle, for Applicant. Mrs. A.S.Pai, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : AUGUST 17th, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for regular bail preferred by the Applicant during pendency of the matter now culminated in the charge sheet and pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay for the offences punishable under section 302 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. 2. At the out set it may be mentioned that whether the provisions of section 109 of I.P.C. can be attracted considering allegations against present Applicant or whether section 114 of the Indian Penal Code would be applicable or whether section 34 of the Indian Penal Code SRJ 2 would be applicable for the offence punishable under section 302, is the aspect to be dealt with by the concerned Additional Session Judge who will decide the main case on the merits of the evidence that would be brought before it. 3. At this stage, suffice it to state that in the First Information Report, there is nothing specifically mentioned, still the presence of the present Applicant during incident is mentioned in the supplementary statement of the Complainant recorded on the next day. Specific role is attributed to the present Applicant as during incident, along with the main accused, Applicant assaulted by iron rod causing injury. Apparently, the incident was witnessed by 10 years young son of the deceased. Statement of said eye witness has been recorded by the Police on 27 th February, 2009 i.e. on the next day of the First Information Report. The alleged incident of murder of the deceased occurred in the night between 26 th /27 th December, 2009 when the deceased along with his son, the said young boy, went to the house of the main accused for enquiry, so far as whereabouts of his wife. Admittedly, at that late hours of night, main accused was in association with the present Applicant. Present Applicant and main accused are relatives. Apparently, there was dispute between deceased on one side and both SRJ 3 the accused on the other side. In the statement, it is mentioned that Accused stabbed the deceased and deceased succumbed to the injuries. Son of the deceased was present in the room. He noticed the incident and also mentioned in his statement as to the presence of the present Applicant and role played by him. 4. The main accused was arrested immediately on lodging the First Information Report and knife was recovered at his instance. The present Applicant was arrested on 2 nd January, 2010 i.e. after about 5 days and washed cloths having stains of blood were recovered. Said clothes are sent for chemical analysis. However, the result is awaited. 5. Investigation is already over and charge sheet is also filed. The main case of the prosecution so far as present Applicant is concerned, is based on statement of the young boy. The specific role is assigned to the present Applicant in the said statement. In that view of the matter, considering the involvement of present Applicant and considering that on his release on bail during pendency of the Trial, there is likelihood of tampering of the witness i.e. only the eye witness i.e. young boy of 10 years, it is not a fit case to release the Applicant on bail. However, the trial in the matter SRJ 4 can be expedited. Criminal Application stands rejected. 6. Concerned Additional Sessions Judge, who is seized of the mater to dispose off the said case according to law and on merits and preferably within nine months from the receipt of this order. 7. Needless to mention that Trial Court shall not influence by the observations made in the present order so far as the merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)