1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1697 OF 2009 Kishor S/o Raghunath Bankar Age : 34 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o At Taklibhan, Tal. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra, Copy to be served on the Govt. Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1581 OF 2009 Ashok S/o Raghunath Gholap, Age : 33 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o Bajajnagar, MIDC, Aurangabad .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Jiwan Patil, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the applicant (in Cri. App. 1697/2009) Mr. S.G. Ladda, Advocate for the applicant (in Cri. App. 1581 of 2009) Smt. R.R. Mane, APP for the respondent-State 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Both the applications can be decided by this common order. Both the applicants are seeking bail in crime no. 113 of 2008 of Shrirampur Taluka Police Station, District Ahmednagar. The applicants and two others are accused of committing murder etc. of one Shriram Chide on or about 25.12.2008. The facts that are revealed from the chargesheet can be narrated as under:- 2] The deceased was last seen alive when he had gone to have dinner at a restaurant by name Gangotri Dhaba, alongwith present applicants and other accused Vijay. This restaurant belonged to the fourth accused Balasaheb. The deceased, and his companions named above had liquor and food at the restaurant and at about 11 O’ clock there occurred a dispute between Balasaheb on one side and the deceased on the other side. After this dispute the present applicants and accused Vijay left the 3 restaurant leaving the accused Balasaheb and the deceased at the restaurant. The deceased was drunk and was sitting in his car on the rear seat. The other accused Balasaheb then dragged the deceased out of his car and made him to sit in open against a tree. The other accused Balasaheb then took away the key of the car and took the car away. The workers in the restaurant stated that they saw the deceased alive in drunken condition outside the restaurant during that night. Thereafter what happened to the deceased is not clear from the prosecution case but on 28.12.2008 his dead body was found in a well which is situated very close to the restaurant. It seems that on 26.12.2008 since the deceased was not seen, a missing report was made to the Police station by his brother and the present applicants were also present when such report was made. It appears that the Police recorded statements of the present applicants. After the dead body was found it was referred to Medical Officer for post mortem but unfortunately the Medical Officer could not opine about the cause of death of the deceased. Thus the post mortem report 4 does not indicate that the deceased died of homicidal death. 3] This rather truncated investigation is the material against the applicant. The applicants’ earlier bail application came to be rejected only because chargesheet was not filed. While rejecting their application for bail, this Court had given them liberty to move fresh application after chargesheet is filed. Even after chargesheet is filed the material against the applicants and other accused has not changed. 4] I think the applicants deserve bail. The applicants are released on bail of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount. 5] Applications disposed of. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/10june9/cr1697.09