1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4570 OF 2009 1. Balaji @ Balasaheb S/o.Yadav Chate, and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Parali (Rural), Police Station, Tq.Parali, Dist. Beed RESPONDENT Mr.Amit Mukhedkar, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 27/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No. 156/2009, registered in Parali Vaijnath (Rural) Police Station for their alleged involvement in the offence punishable u/s. 302, 504, 147, 148, 149 of The IPC, in which they came to be arrested on 18/09/2009 and since then are in custody. 2. According to learned counsel for applicants, after the investigation is over, charge sheet is already filed against the accused 2 on 11/11/2009, but no instructions whether committal order is passed or not. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the learned APP and counsel for original complainant. It appears that the complaint came to be lodged on 15/09/2009 by one Shivabai Dahiphale about the assault at the hands of these applicants and 4 others on Dnyanoba who was seriously injured and while taking/shifting to the hospital, before his admission in the hospital, he expired. The role assigned so far as 2nd applicant is concerned, as there was boundary land dispute between the family of deceased and the family of applicants, on the faithful day, after the initial quarrel, the 2nd applicant forced the deceased to lie on the ground while the 1st applicant and the applicants those who were released on bail, they assaulted with stones, fists and kick blows, which resulted in the death of Dnyanoba. The bail is claimed on the ground that as now the investigation is over and other accused are released on bail, on the ground of parity, these accused are entitled for bail. On the second aspect, the role attributed to the released accused as well as the first applicant is omni-bus and there are sweeping allegations that due to the assault by the first applicant and the accused who are released on bail, deceased expired. 4. While opposing the bail application, learned APP brought to the notice of this Court that 3 NC’s came to be registered against the accused who are released on bail that they are threatening Dattu, the 3 son of deceased and other witnesses to settle the dispute or to withdraw the complaint lodged against them and the accused who are released on bail. To brought these instances to the notice of this Court, the complaint dated 29/09/2009, 24/10/2009 and 23/11/2009 are placed in my hand for my perusal. The very purpose to release the applicant accused on bail is not to curtail their liberty before the trial to be over and the applicants accused to be declared as guilty of the offence charged, but if there are chances of misuse of this liberty by tampering the witnesses of prosecution, then in such cases, the liberty of such applicants accused to be curtailed. Already the instances are quoted by bringing on record the NC’s lodged against the accused who are already released on bail and who are female accused, then there is no guarantee if these accused are released on bail, they will not threaten the prosecution witnesses. 5. In the premise, even though otherwise the applicants are entitled for bail, but because of tampering of prosecution witnesses, they are not entitled for bail. Application sans any merit, hence rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.4570-09