abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2008 Deepak G. Deshmukh .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.R.S. Thakur for the applicant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 15th October 2007 in connection with the offence registered with Karjat Police Station under C.R. No.55/2007 punishable under sections 302, 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 27th May 2007, Archana, daughter of the complainant Shantaram, had gone to the forest at 4.00 p.m. for picking up black berries. As she did not return, he along with other male relatives and villagers went to the forest for - 2 - search but she was not found. He again went to the forest on 28th May 2007 at about 10.00 a.m. for search when he found dead body of Archana. On inspection of the body, he noticed several injuries on the body of Archana. He therefore lodged the FIR on 28th May 2007 stating that his daughter was killed by unknown persons for unknown reason. Statement of Avinash Shantaram Pawar, brother of the deceased, was recorded on 3rd June 2007 wherein he stated that the deceased was assaulted and killed by Vinod with a sickle. Vinod was arrested and has since been granted bail by the Sessions Court. On 29th September 2007, third statement of Avinash Shantaram Pawar was recorded in which he has stated that the applicant was holding legs of Archana when Vinod was assaulting her with sickle. He then stated that Vinod had threatened him that if he narrates the incident to anyone, Vinod would kill him. On account of the threats, he has not named Deepak in the earlier two statements. 4. Vinod, who is alleged to be the assailant, has been granted bail and therefore the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. In my view, there are few more circumstances which entitle the applicant to bail. First statement of Avinash was recorded on 29th June 2007, that is two days after the incident. In the said statement, he did not disclose - 3 - anything about the incident. In his second statement dated 3rd June 2007 recorded after about 5 days of the incident, Avinash named only Vinod as the assailant and did not name the present applicant. It is only in the third statement dated 29th September 2007, recorded after 3 months of the incident that Avinash has named the applicant. The reason given by him that it he did not name him out of fear is not at all convincing. Though the threat was given to him by Vinod, he has named Vinod in his statement dated 3rd June 2007 but he did not name the applicant who had not given any threat to him. These circumstances which raise suspicion on the complicity of the applicant in the crime. 5. In the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER The applicant be released on bail in connection with the offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties for the aggregate amount of Rs.30,000/- subject to the condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall attend the police station once a month between 1st and 5th of every British calendar month till the conclusion of trial. - 4 - (D.G. KARNIK, J.)