jpc ba428-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2011 Rajendra Prakash Kokne ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Ganesh Gole a/w Mr. Shyamrishi Pathak for the applicant Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 1st July, 2011. P.C. : 1. The applicant and eight others are the accused in Sessions Case no.14 of 2010, pending before the Sessions Court at Jaisingpur, Dist. Kolhapur. The facts of that case are, in brief, that- the dead body of one Dattatray Patil was found at about 7.15 p.m. on 22/5/2010 in a field. Dattatray had left his house at about 4.45 p.m. and had gone towards his farm on his Hero Honda Motorcycle. There were injuries on the dead body. The death was believed to be homicidal and hence, the brother of Dattatray, Mr. Prabhakar, lodged a report with the police, which was treated as the First Information Report and a case, in respect of offences punishable under sections 302 and 120(B) read with section 34 of the Indian jpc ba428-11.sxw 2 Penal Code, was registered. In the course of investigation, nine persons, including the applicant, came to be arrested as culprits. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased- Dattatray- was a social worker and had, in the past, complained against the applicant and, based on his complaint, a case in respect of offences of forgery, forgery for cheating etc., was registered against the applicant and some others. The applicant was arrested in that case and since his bail application was opposed by the deceased, the applicant had to be in custody for about three months. Therefore, the applicant was having a grudge against the deceased and had conspired to kill him with the assistance of the other accused. 3. Heard Mr. Gole, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Newton, the learned APP for State. 4. I have gone through the charge sheet. 5. Admittedly, the applicant has not taken actual part in the assault. The actual assailants are said to be one Rahul Dhale jpc ba428-11.sxw 3 (accused no.1), Shrinivas Morkar(accused no.2), Dayanand Nawale (accused no.3), Mahesh Vibhute (accused No.4), Babu Anant Mishri (accused no.5) and Biju alias Satish Rajput (accused no.6). 6. Mr. Gole, the learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that there was no material to show the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. According to him, there was no evidence to support the theory of conspiracy. It is also pointed out that the brother of the deceased did not suspect the present applicant at the time of lodging the F.I.R. It is also pointed out that the statements of a number of persons have been recorded in the course of investigation, who claimed to have learnt involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence on the basis of what the police told them. 7. It is also pointed out that the brother of the deceased had filed a Writ Petition in this court, claiming that the investigation in this case was not proceeding on proper lines, and that the real culprits were being protected by the investigating agency, deliberately. The petitioner- brother of the deceased wanted the investigation to be transferred to some other agency. jpc ba428-11.sxw 4 8. Though much importance to the averments in the said petition cannot be given, the fact remains that, apparently, there were others who also could have possibly entertained grudge against the deceased. Brother of the deceased did not suspect that the applicant would be behind the murder. 9. When it was contended that the material in the charge sheet was insufficient to justify the detention of the applicant in custody, the learned APP submitted that some further investigation had been carried out after filing of the charge sheet and that such further investigation shows the involvement of the present applicant. It was submitted that the printouts in respect of telephonic contacts between the applicant and the other accused have been secured by the investigating agency from the concerned Companies and these printouts indicate and show the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. 10. No additional or supplementary charge on the basis of further investigation that has been carried has been filed before the Magistrate or the Court of Sessions. Some documents, I am informed, have been just tendered in the Court of Sessions jpc ba428-11.sxw 5 terming them as "additional evidence". Such documents have been shown to this Court during the hearing of this bail application and the same are taken on record. I have taken these documents also into consideration. Though much can be said about the value of these printouts, in the absence of any satisfactory material to show, as to which mobiles/telephone instrument belongs to whom, I do not wish to go into the same, at this stage. Even if the case of investigating agency is accepted, it would show that the applicant was in telephonic contact at the material time with accused no.2, 3, 6 and 9. 11. I have seen the nature of material that is available against accused accused Nos. 2, 3 6 and 9. Accused no.9 has already been released on bail. Considering the nature of the material that is available against accused nos. 2, 3, 6 and 9, I do not think that the telephonic contacts between the applicant and them at the material time, would be sufficient to justify further detention of the applicant in custody, without granting bail to him. 12. It is pointed out that there is recovery of incriminating articles i.e. weapons from accused No.4- Mahesh Vibhute, but, jpc ba428-11.sxw 6 admittedly, there is no contact between the applicant and the said accused No.4- Mahesh Vibhute on or around 22nd May, 2011. There appears to be some telephonic contact between the applicant and said accused no. 4 Mr Mahesh Vibhute on 17th May, 2010. 13. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and the material on the basis of which the applicant is being prosecuted, I think it fit to grant bail to the applicant. 14. The Bail Application is allowed. 15. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in like amount, on the condition to attend the concerned Police Station on first Sunday of every month between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. till disposal of the case against him. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)