1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 731 of 2010 [Dayaram Mahadeo Dange Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.V. Bhide, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 11th June, 2010. 1. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No. 266/2007. 2. Initially, offences punishable under Sections 364 and 365 of Indian Penal Code were registered. Lateron, Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code have been added. 3. Heard. 4. It is seen from the investigation so far conducted that the case is made out against present applicant in view of the statement of one witness – Badushah Akbarshah Musalman, which was recorded on 23 rd May, 2008 and his supplementary statement dated 11 th August, 2008. It is seen that this witness involves the present applicant in the commission of offence. 2 5. During oral submissions, learned Adv. Mr. A.V. Bhide has raised a serious question about worthiness of this witness on the grounds, namely:- [a] He did not disclose incident of such serious offence witnessed by him to anybody for such a long time. [b] This witness has criminal antecedents. [c] The story appears to be highly improbable. 6. Nothing is suggested as to why this witness has any reason to lie. 7. The question as to whether the version of this witness is worthy of trust or not does not arise at this stage. 8. The police is supposed to act on reliable information and witnesses are supposed to give statements to police as nearly as factual and true and hence at this stage, it would be not permissible to sit into judgment of the question as to truthfulness of version of witnesses and their and worthiness. 9. While the act of witness Badushah Akbarshah appears to be strange as to why he did not reveal the information punctually, it is seen that in the supplementary statement, he has explained, saying that he had disclosed it to 3 the Police Patil, who silenced him. 10. In this background, on account of previous criminal record of a particular witness, it would not be permissible to brand him untrustworthy at this stage. 11. Therefore, prima facie, at this stage, it cannot be held that the applicant is not involved in the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 12. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 13. Application is rejected. Judge |Hedau|