1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1218 OF 2010 Dangal Sitaram Patil ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, ...Respondent ..... Miss Sadaf Quazi, advocate holding for Shri J.R.Shaikh, advocate for the applicant Smt. Vaishali Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 13th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Miss Sadaf Quazi, advocate holding for Shri J.R.Shaikh, advocate for the applicant and Smt. Vaishali Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This is an application for bail preferred by the applicant herein in connection with CR No. 19 of 2010, registered at Yawal police station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 284, 304A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 184 and 2 134B of the Motor Vehicles Act, since the applicant was arrested on 22.2.2010 thereunder and he is under judicial custody presently. . 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Jitendra Devidas Salunke on 24.2.2010 and criminal law was set into motion. 4 Initially, it appears that crime was registered under Sections 284 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 184 and 134B of the Motor Vehicles Act, however, subsequently Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code was incorporated therein. 5 It is alleged that victim Vikas Ganpat Bari had an affair with daughter of the present applicant and as such on 24.2.2010 in the afternoon when the applicant along with other accused was going in an auto rickshaw of one Sanjay Bari, they saw another auto rickshaw of Prakash Kulte coming from other side and when it was stopped, they saw victim was sitting in the said auto rickshaw. It is alleged that the accused persons pulled down him and made him to sit in their auto rickshaw and thereafter assaulted him with stick on his head and also made him to consume poisonous substance forcibly, which led to his death. 6 On the afore said background, learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that when the victim, who was unknown to the 3 complainant, came near his Tapri, he found that blood was oozing from his head, and therefore, when the complainant asked him about the same, the victim stated that he met with an accident. 7 In the said context, learned counsel for the applicant urged that it is the version of the victim only that he met with the accident, and therefore, the applicant cannot be connected with the alleged crime. 8 Learned A.P.P. countered the said argument and opposed the present application vehemently and pointed out that during the course of investigation, statements of two eye witnesses, namely Sanjay Bari and Prakash Kulte were recorded and it was canvassed that the witness Sanjay Bari is an independent witness. 9 On perusal of the statements of the said eye witnesses, it appears that the applicant herein is apparently involved in the alleged crime. Moreover, it is also seen from the investigation papers that the clothes were recovered at the instance of the applicant under the memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which were allegedly concealed by him, as well as bottle of poisonous substance was recovered under the memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 10 Considering the afore said facts and also considering the 4 circumstances apparently there is prima facie case against the applicant and the complicity of the applicant in the serious offence is also apparent. The investigation is under progress and same has not been completed, and therefore, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail. 11 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 1218 of 2010 being sans merit stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to apply for bail before the trial court after filing the charge sheet. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1218.10