1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.357 OF 2010 Abhijeet Bhalchandra Salvi Age-43 years, Occ-Business R/o Snehal Apartment, Professor Colony, Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ........ Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh APP for respondent State. ........ [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 16th February 2010 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.135/2009 registered with Tophkhana police station, as he is arrested on 29.03.2009 and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed and the case is also committed and numbered as Sessions Case No.128/2009. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. It appears that one Peter Salve was murdered on 29.03.2009 at his residential premises. Complaint was lodged by one Rajendra Salvi when the dead body of Peter, an advocate by profession, was found and on the basis of said complaint offence was registered against 2 certain unknown persons. Initially, one Kishor and Rajendra were arrested. Investigation reveals that these two accused had visited the house of deceased Peter at 11.30 a.m. on the day of incident after hot discussion they had left the said premises. It further appears that the said accused returned back after collecting nylon rope and committed murder of Peter and fled away. Thereafter, present applicant, his wife and his father came to be arrested. There is chequered history of litigation in respect of landed property between father of the present applicant and deceased Peter. 3. It is urged that this is a case of conspiracy with murder and case against the applicant rests on circumstances. According to learned counsel for the applicant the only incriminating evidence collected against the applicant and his wife is that they were in constant touch with accused Kishor and Rajendra, whose services, it is alleged, were hired by the wife of the applicant to kill Peter. According to learned counsel for applicant the alleged incident took place before 11.30 where as calls / communication on cell phone are after 1.30. Another circumstance against the applicant is that wife of the applicant had withdrawn huge amount from the ATM and paid the same to the alleged contract killers. For this incriminating evidence there is only the statement of the two accused recorded during the investigation i.e. statement of accomplice, which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the applicant is a heart patient and requires constant treatment. It is also contended that there is stay to the further 3 proceedings of Sessions Case No. 128/2009 and hence, there is no progress in the case and hence it is urged that the applicant be released on bail. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the alleged contract was given to the accused by the wife of the applicant, who is already released on bail. It is also contended that the alleged beneficiary of the murder of Peter, i.e. father of the applicant is also released on bail. It is, therefore, requested that neither the applicant is directly involved in the crime as he was not the direct beneficiary of the landed property nor there is nexus between the alleged contract killing and role played by the applicant. 4. While opposing the bail application, it is urged that it is a case of conspiracy. According to learned APP the record of cell phone of the applicant reveals that immediately after the alleged incident, till his arrest, there was continuous communication between the applicant and the alleged contract killers. It is also urged that the motive behind the murder i.e. the property came to the share of the father of the applicant and acquired by the applicant is already disposed of and hence there is prima facie case against the applicant. It is also urged that considering the serious nature of the offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. Considering the rival submissions, it is clear that the case of conspiracy against the applicant rests on circumstances. It requires to consider that though statement of one Shamrao is recorded, who states that in the evening of the alleged incident, the 4 applicant and his wife had contacted the alleged contract killers at their residence and handed over the money withdrawn from the ATM to them. For corroborating this evidence there is statement of accomplice, which is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be accepted at least at this stage. Considering the fact that further progress of the sessions case is held up due to stay and the applicant is behind bars since 11 months and the fact that the case against the applicant rests on circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is a heart patient and as other accused are already released on bail, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail, however, by imposing certain conditions. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. Applicant is directed to give attendance to Tophkhana police station on 16th and 28th day of each month between 3 and 5 p.m. till disposal of the trial. The applicant is also directed not to leave the local jurisdiction of Tophkhana police station and Sessions Court, Ahmednagar, without previous permission in writing from the Investigation Officer concerned or from the concerned Sessions Judge. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) drp/A10/criapln357-10