1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5712 OF 2009 Prakash Baban Gawali )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondents Mr.Shirish Gupte Sr. Advocate i/by Sachin S.Thombare for the applicant. Smt. A. S. Gadkari APP for the State. Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the original complainant. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 5th April, 2010 PC 1 This is an application for grant of bail. The applicant is shown as an accused in C.R.No.72/2009 registered by the Lonavala City Police Station. The matter is committed to the court of Sessions and the Sessions Case No.1085/2009 was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 120(b) read with 34 of IPC. The deceased was one Upendra Chaudhary. One more injured person is Umesh who is an eye witness in this case. The deceased was a President of Lonavala Municipal Council and the incident of stabbing took place in broad day light. The two assailants were Sumit Gawli and Jafar Shaikh. Both are in police custody. In so far as present applicant is concerned, he is a father of Sumit Gawli and he along with his other son are sought to be roped in by applying section 120-B. In order to bring home conspiracy, police have relied upon the statements of Shankar Laxman Bharekar and Sagar Anil Gawli. The incident in question is said to have taken place on 26.5.2009. The statements of these two witnesses are recorded four days thereafter on 2 29.5.2009. I have seen these two statements. They are identical word to word, paragraph to paragraph. According to these witnesses, 15 to 20 days before the statements, they had both gone to Ekveera Chinese Restaurant to take a parcel and there, on the counter the present applicant and his 2 sons Amit & Sumit were having a conversation regarding the deceased Raju Chaudhary. At that time the present applicant is said to have stated that they were suffering losses due to Raju Chaudyary and they should not leave him. Thereafter they noticed these two witnesses and kept silent. 2 It may be stated here that record indicates that the other son of the present applicant Amit Gawli is also a local Corporator. According to the prosecution the Gawli family was keen on doing away with the deceased because their restaurant had been demolished at the behest of the deceased. There is political rivalry. It is however, seen that this Court by a reasoned order dated 24.11.2009 has granted bail to Amit Gawli. According to the prosecution unauthorised restaurant which was demolished was being run by Sumit Gawli. That will give Sumit an independent cause for enmity. Be that as it may, in the order passed by this Court on 24.11.2009 this Court observed that the statements of the two witnesses Shankar Bharekar and Sagar Gawli did not indicate that Amit Gawli was conspiring to kill the deceased. In so far as aforesaid two witnesses are concerned, the case of the present applicant is par with Amit Gawli. It was then sought to be pointed out that the police have further material in the form of a statement of a rikshaw driver recorded on 6.6.2009. According to him the two actual assailants traveled in his rikshaw and he heard conversation between them. He heard Sumit Gawli saying that he had informed the present applicant about the death of Raju but that he was not able to inform Amit. As regards this, I find that the statement of this witness was also recorded 10 days earlier on 3 26.5.2009 wherein he has not made the said statement. In his statement recorded 10 days thereafter he claims that he did not disclose this to the police because he was afraid. There is thus some infirmity in this material collected by the police. My attention was then drawn to the statement of the wife of the deceased who was herself a Corporator, recorded on 26.7.2009 wherein she talks about a threat given by the present applicant in the collectors’ office. That threat however, is not given in relation to the alleged demolition of the hotel. It is contended that there are some antecedents against the present applicant. In my view, therefore, the case of the present applicant is some what on par with the case of Amit who was a sitting Corporator and who has been granted bail by this Court. 3 In the circumstances, pending the disposal of Sessions Case No.1085/2009, the present applicant may be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he will not contact any witnesses in this crime and will not enter Lonavala city. Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is staying at Khalapur which is in Raigad district. He will report to Khalapur police station once a week on every Monday till the disposal of the trial. Application stands disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 4 5