1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1586 of 2010 Awadhoot Tukaram Pawar ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Arvi, Dist. Wardha. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. V.P. Vaidya Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.R.Taywade, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 26 th Octo ber , 2010 . Heard. By this application the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 131/2010, registered with Police Station, Arvi, Dist. Wardha for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code. The offence came to be registered on the information given by Dr. Ingle of Gramin Rugnalaya, Arvi that one patient was died and his name is Ashok Ramraoji Pawar and expressed doubt that the deceased was murdered. Police recorded the statement of the wife of the deceased, namely Smt. Kamla and further investigation was carried out. On the basis of material collected by the prosecution agency, the applicant found involved in the present crime. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant and he is falsely involved in the said offence only on the ground of suspicion. Learned Advocate, therefore, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. Learned APP has filed reply and opposed the application. Learned APP has also produced record before the court for perusal. 2 Perusal of the record show that the statement of wife of the deceased was immediately recorded and in said statement, the presence of applicant as well as act committed by the applicant is specifically mentioned. One more statement of a witness is available on record giving similar facts. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the statement of other witness came to be recorded at a belated stage. In my opinion, at this stage we have to see the prima facie material available on record to see whether the applicant deserves to be released on bail and the assessment and scrutiny of material is not expected at this stage. Learned APP submitted that the offence is serious in nature. Learned APP also expressed an apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail, he may not be available for further investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant had approached the Sessions Court, Wardha for grant bail. However, learned Sessions Judge rejected the application vide order dated 15/9/2010. Learned APP submitted that there is no change in the circumstances. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. In view of above, I find that there is prima facie material available with the investigating agency against the applicant. The apprehension expressed by learned APP is justified. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale