{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4270 OF 2009 1. Subhash s/o Sopan Andhale Age-36 years, Occ-Agriculture 2. Parmeshwar s/o Sopan Andhale Age-22 years, Oc-Agriculture 3. Vaijnath s/o Angad Phad Age-25 years, Occ-Agriculture 4. Tukaram s/o Bhavanji Mundhe Age-55 years, Occ-Agriculture All R/o Dhabewadi, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for State Mr.S.V.Mundhe, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 9th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicants, who are {2} accused in CR No.29/2009 registered with Pimpaldari police station, Dist-Parbhani, have prayed to release them on bail, as they are arrested on 24.05.2009 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 19.08.2009, however the trial is yet not committed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP, who is assisted by learned counsel for original complainant. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. Admittedly, the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Nathrao Phad in respect of an incident dated 23.05.2009. It is alleged in the complaint that in all 21 persons, including present applicants, assaulted the complainant, his father and one Madhukar. Story of prosecution, in short, is that, earlier the complainant, his father and Madhukar saw the applicants along with others assembled armed with deadly weapons and hence they returned back to their house. It is further alleged that after some time, they came on road, as they want to go to their field. At this time also they noticed the accused, along with applicants, standing by the side of road and hence, to save their lives, they ran into the field of Angad, one of the accused in this offence. It is further alleged that in the field, they were surrounded by all the accused and were assaulted with deadly weapons. During the assault, Keshv and Madhukar sustained grievous injuries and they succumbed to the same. It is also alleged that {3} the complainant was assaulted by present applicants No.1 to 3 and he was treated in the hospital. The applicants are claiming bail as the charge sheet has been filed and their applications are rejected by the courts below. 4. Learned counsel for applicants has drawn my attention to the Postmortem notes in respect of both the deceased and urged that only one external injury was found on the person of deceased Keshav and the cause of death is shown as due to head injury and in respect of deceased Madhukar, only two surface injuries were mentioned and the cause of death is also shown as due to head injuries. It is urged that though it is alleged that the applicants No. 1 to 3 have assaulted deceased Keshav and Madhukar, yet the statements of the eye witnesses are not supported by the Postmortem report and hence the statements may not be taken as Gospel truth. It is urged that though deadly weapons are recovered at the instance of the applicants, yet allegations against them cannot be linked with the death of both the deceased. So far injuries on the complainant, it is urged that though it is alleged that the present applicants No.1 to 3 have assaulted the complainant with axe, however the nature of injuries found on the person of the complainant and recorded in the medical certificate, is simple. So far as statements of eye witnesses alleging assault against present applicant are concerned, it is contended that the allegations are omnibus. In the premise, it is urged that the incident has taken place in the filed where they were working and {4} they were not the members of the unlawful assembly. It is, therefore, prayed to release the applicants on bail. 5. Learned APP, while opposing the application, has urged that there are statements of eye witnesses and recovery of weapons at the instance of present applicants. It is also urged that the applicants were the members of unlawful assembly and it cannot be said that they were the performing agricultural operations and were not members of unlawful assembly. It is urged by learned APP that though only one surface injury is noticed in the Postmortem report of deceased Keshav and two surface injuries on the person of deceased Madhukar, the same are in contravention of the injuries noticed during the inquest Panchanama as the statements of witnesses are corroborating the inquest Panchanama. 6. Considering the rival submissions it is clear that there was scuffle between two groups and at the same time though the applicants are alleged members of unlawful assembly, yet there are no allegations against them that they have assaulted both the deceased on head, due to which the deceased have expired. 7. No doubt, various injuries are mentioned in the inquest Panchanama conducted on both the deceased, however the same is not supported by the Postmortem notes. Obviously, this is not the stage to ascertain as to whether to believe the Postmortem {5} report or the inquest Panchanama. However, fact remains that there is material controversy in respect of injuries recorded in Postmortem report and inquest Panchanama. The said controversy can be resolved during the trial. But it is clear that the controversy in the two documents has created room for doubt in respect of the role played by the applicants. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail, however by imposing certain conditions. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on bail in connection with CR No.29/2009 registered with Pimpaldari police station, Dist-Parbhani on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. The applicants are directed not to enter the Dhebewadi village till conclusion of the trial. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4270-09 {6} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3685 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Walmik Sopan Andhale & others RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3748 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Angad s/o Sadhue Phad & others RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3749 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Ramprabhu s/o Jagannath Phad RESPONDENT ....... Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the applicant State Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 9th February 2010 {7} PER COURT: 1. These are the applications by which the State has moved this Court for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondents on the ground that while granting the bail, the trial court has committed irregularity of not assessing the evidence properly. 2. Heard learned APP for the applicant State followed by Mrs.Jadhav, for respondents. 3. Today, while allowing criminal application No. 4270/2009 this Court has considered the role attributed to the applicants therein as well as allegations in the complaint so also the injuries noticed on the person of both the deceased and the complainant. So far as injuries noticed on the person of the complainant are concerned, as per medical certificate, the same are simple in nature. So far as injuries noticed on the person of both the deceased are concerned, in respect of the same, specific roles are attributed against accused Ganesh and Govind, who are not released on bail by the trial court. 4. The respondents are granted bail by the trial court on two grounds i.e. no overt act is attributed to the respondents, which has resulted into the death of both the deceased so also they {8} are not responsible for the injuries noticed on the person of the complainant. Apart from this, allegations against the present respondents are sweeping in nature that they were the members of unlawful assembly, but, to their credit, no overt act is alleged. 5. In the premise, no interference is called for in the impugned order in all the three applications. 6. In the result, as no illegality is committed by the trial court in granting bail to the respondents, all the three criminal applications stand rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4270-09