1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1980/2010 (Kapoor @ Sandip[ @ Vijay Indarsingh @ Sattar Bhosale and one .vs. State of Maharashtra ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. P.V. Bhoyar, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : JANUARY 14, 2011 Heard. By the present application, the applicants/accused arrested on 16.8.2010 in connection with Crime No. 83/2008 registered by Hiwarkhed Police Station for offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC have prayed for bail. The said crime was registered upon the F.I.R. lodged by one Sunita Raosaheb Pawar sister of one of the victims Mohan and Prabhu involved in the incident. It is the prosecution case as per the said F.I.R. that on the day of the incident father of the applicants by means of axe and the applicants by means of knives have attempted to commit murder of both the victims by assaulting with the weapons possessed by them. It is also prosecution case that the incident had occurred due to love affair 2 developed in between victim Mohan and Jullie – cousin of the present applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for releasing the applicants on bail by contending that the charge sheet being filed, there is absolutely no reason to continue the applicants in custody. It is urged that the material collected by the investigating agency fails to show the involvement of the applicants in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is further urged that the Police for hiding their own inaction are alleging that the applicants were absconding after commission of an offence. It is urged that the applicants were very much in Chikhli. It is urged that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in custody. The prayer for bail was opposed by the learned APP by contending that the applicants are hardened criminals. It is urged that the applicants had absconded after commission of the offence and the said fact is evident as they were required to be arrested while being in custody in a crime registered with Gangapur Police Station. It was urged that considering the prolong period for which the applicants had absconded and the Police being able to arrest them only due to themselves being arrested in another crime, the prosecution has reasonable apprehension that the applicants if released on bail would flee away jeopardising the progress of trial against them. After perusal of the material in the charge sheet and particularly matters stated in the first information report and the statements of injured Mohan 3 and Prabhu Suresh and the other three eye witnesses namely Ku. Asha, Dadarao Pawar and Mala Dadarao Pawar , it is difficult to to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the material in the charge sheet fail to disclose involvement of the applicants in commission of offence punishable with imprisonment of life. Such a prima facie inference arises as the said material in terms reveals that during the incident both the applicants were armed with the weapons and had used the same for assaulting the victims along with their father who was also armed with an axe. Thus having regard to the injuries inflicted, at this stage it is difficult even prima facie to accept the submission that involvement of the applicants in commission of offence punishable with imprisonment for life is not borne from the same. Apart from the aforesaid the material in the diary also reveals that the applicants were absconding for a prolong period for about two years un-till the Police were able to nab them due to being arrested in another crime. Furthermore the third accused involved in the crime i.e. their father is still absconding. Having regard to the same, there appears justification in the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that in the event of the applicants repeating such acts would thwart the progress of the prosecution against them. Having regard to the said aspect and so also taking into consideration the accusation faced by them being for an offence punishable up-till imprisonment for life, it is difficult to find any merit in the submission canvassed that since the investigation is complete, they should be 4 enlarged on bail. Hence it is difficult to accede with prayer for bail made by them and hence the application stands rejected. JUDGE halwai