1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.43/2011 (Vasant Madnaiya Thakre and one .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicants, Mr. D.P. Thakre, APP for non-applicant. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2011 Heard. The reply filed by the prosecution today is taken on record. The prayer for bail made by the applicants charge sheeted by Police Station, Reguntha, Tahsil– Sironcha, District – Gadchiroli as a result of investigation of Crime No.2/2010 for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC registered on 16.3.2010 upon the first information report lodged by Mogli Malayya Jangam after receiving information from Ramlu that decomposed corpse of two women were lying in the sand of river “Pranhita” is vehemently objected by the learned APP on the count of involvement of the applicants being borne from the statement of sole eyewitness recorded during the course of investigation. 2 The learned counsel for the applicants has rightly counterveiled said submission by pointing that said statement of purported eye-witness being recorded on 26.8.2010 i.e. after about 5½ months after registration of crime prima facie takes away the credibility of the claims staked therein. Similarly, the further submission of learned counsel for the applicants also cannot be said to be without the force that the said statement prima facie fails to give clue regarding the reason due to which said witness after five months had been to Police for reporting the incident seen by him. Though it is true that the matters in the same prima facie also reveals claim of witness being threatened by the applicant along with other co-accused on the day of incident and again on three days thereafter for narrating the matters seen by him still prima facie the said claim also runs counter to the claim of witness of having allegedly seen the incident through the bushes. It is further significant to note that prima facie perusal of the matters in the said statement does not reveal the culprits having seen the witness witnessing the incident. It was also rightly canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants that the claim staked in the said statement prima facie reveals that the victim women were then asking the culprits to take the ornaments and money which was with them but to leave them. It is urged that failure to recover any amount or ornaments by the investigating agency also suggests of the applicants being falsely implicated in this case in place of real culprits. Thus, having regard to such character of 3 prosecution evidence and no other material being pointed out by the learned APP in support of the prosecution case, the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail with certain stringent conditions to take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned APP of there being possibility of prosecution evidence getting tampered. Hence the order : The applicants are directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.2/2010 of Police Station, Reguntha, Tah. Sironcha, Distt. Gadchiroli upon each of them furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount and subject to the conditions that applicants - (i) shall attend the investigating officer in connection with the investigation in between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm on every day for a period of three months and, thereafter, every Monday; (ii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not change the same without permission of the Court; (iii) shall not indulge in any activity of tampering prosecution evidence, (iv) shall not commit any offence while on bail. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE Gulande