1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4137 OF 2009 Arjun S/o.Yadav Waghmare APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Degloor, Dist. Nanded RESPONDENT Mr.G.G.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 15/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for releasing him on bail in connection with CR No.113/2009, registered in Degloor Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. The application is moved after the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. According to learned counsel appearing for the applicant that his name do not appear in the FIR, but during the investigation of this crime, his name discloses in the statement of one Yadav Kamaji 2 Sonkamble which was recorded on 31/07/2009. Other than the vague allegations in the complaint, there is no other evidence to link him with the said offence, hence claimed to release him on bail. 4. Learned APP opposed the bail on the ground that the alleged incident is of murder of 2 persons by name Mahesh Patil and one Sangram Mukhede which took place in the night between 29/07/2009 and 30/07/2009. The dead bodies of these 2 persons were found near the field of this deceased Mahesh Patil. The motive behind this murder of Mahesh Patil is that he is having illicit relations with one Padmini and also having an evil eye on the friend of this Padmini by name Lalita and it is against the wishes of Bhagwan, one of the culprit in this matter. 5. Considering these submissions across the bar, it appears that the said FIR came to be registered in Degloor Police Station on 30/07/2009 on the complaint of one Shivmangalabai Lagade Patil. It is a fact that the name of this applicant do not appear in the FIR, but as the charge sheet is filed after completion of entire investigation, wherein this applicant accused came to be arrested on 01/08/2009. 6. It is to be noted that during the investigation, statement of near about 3 witnesses were recorded, which speaks that this applicant was in the company of one Yadav, Sangram, Bhagwan and Chandrakant. Not only they met with the deceased, but after initial departure of this applicant from the company of these 5 persons, 3 they again re-united in the night at about 9.00 p.m., and thereafter this applicant alongwith 4 others by name Arjun, Bhagwan, Sangram, Chandrakant went to the field to take night hault alongwith deceased Mahesh and deceased Sangram. The statement of the witness appeared to be recorded by name Dattatraya, the watchman that at around 10.00 p.m., these Bhagwan and Chandrakant has collected water from this person and from there they went to the place where the incident occurred. There is statement of another witness Chandrakant, who had an occasion to see this applicant in the company of other two persons at around 2.30 a.m. of 30.05.2009. The entire effect of the circumstances goes to show that it is not a co-incident that the applicant was found in the company of others two in the evening of 29.05.2009, but he was in the company of other 3 persons who were present at the place where murder took place. Not at one place, but the reference is found in the statement of witnesses who have seen this applicant alongwith others in the night as well as in the mid night and the places from where the dead bodies were recovered in the early morning of following day. These circumstances clearly establish nexus of the present applicant last seen together in the company of 2 persons who were brutally murdered. In the premise, no case made out to release the applicant on bail. Application sans any merit. Hence application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri-appl-4137-09