1 Cri.Appln.No.52/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.52/2011. 1) Dnyanoba s/o Shrawan Sarwade and others. - APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Mah. And Anr. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mrs.Sadhana S.Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.NB Patil APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 10th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel and learned APP. 2) In earlier session, after hearing both the learned Counsel and perusal of record, coupled with one F.I.R. dated 1st January, 2011, I have indicated to release the accused/applicants on pre-arrest bail. 3) Learned APP Shri Patil invited my attention to the F.I.R. flashed by the counsel for the applicants/accused is dated 1st January, 2011, while the incident, giving rise to Crime No.148/2010 of Osmanabad Rural Police Station, is of 3rd December, 2010 and there is no nexus 2 Cri.Appln.No.52/2011 between the two events though may have taken place at the same premises. Consequently, Smt., Jadhav and Shri Patil are again heard and the investigation papers are perused. Smt. Jadhav has narrated the plight of the applicants, having lost their beloved daughter – Pradnya, who was married to Suhas Gangawane, who was allegedly set ablaze, so disclosed even in the dying declaration. The learned Counsel reiterate that the offence, vide Crime No.148/2010 is a counter- blast. The applicants/accused were already grief- stricken, jittered and could not dare to barg the house of the complainant (in-laws of Pradnya) and commit the offense of theft or ransacking the house. She informs that one of the relations of the rival group is in police and consequently to dither statement of the eye-witness, the daughter of deceased Pradnya and Suhas, false prosecution is initiated. 4) Having perused the F.I.R. Dated 1st January, 2011 of Crime No.1/2011, it is explicit, the neighbours have nabbed the robbers, who were intercepted while others escaped. The said incident has nothing to do with the incident dated 3rd December, 2010, having taken place in the house of the complainant. 5) Specific names of the persons, who intruded, tried to ransack and caused damage to the property or theft, are indicated in the 3 Cri.Appln.No.52/2011 F.I.R. Even the vehicle numbers, in which the applicants/accused have travelled all along, are also indicated. In the investigation papers I find, neighbours have named the culprits, including the applicants/accused herein. It may be, as the learned Counsel submits, these are concocted statements, however, at this stage, influence and tutoring capacity, will not be a predominant factor. The primary indication is, the neighbours have seen few of the applicants/accused in breaking open the lock/door, intruding and ransacking the room. Even if the allegations of robbing gold ornaments or cash, may be illusory as coined, however, it needs an investigation, for which custodial interrogation of the applicants/accused is imperative. It will be headlong to brand CR 148/2010 to be false. 6) In the result, the application, seeking pre-arrest bail is rejected. The earlier protection dated 13.1.2011 is extended up to 17th February, 2011. The accused/applicants thereafter to surrender the concerned Investigator. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/ 4 Cri.Appln.No.52/2011