1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1449 OF 2010 Papu @ Amol s/o Ramesh Gondkar and others ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents ..... Shri S.P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicants Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondents ..... W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1486 OF 2010 Papu alias Prakash s/o Machindra Gondkar ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri R.R. Karpe, Advocate for the applicant Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 22nd April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. At the outset, at the request of learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No.1486/2010, leave granted to 2 carry out the amendment in the title clause of the said application. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The learned counsel Mr. S.P. Chapalgaonkar appearing for applicant No.3 namely Papu @ Pankaj s/o Sanjay Dushing in Criminal Application No.1449/2010 and learned counsel Mr. R.R. Karpe, appearing for the applicant namely Papu alias Prakash s/o Machindra Gondkar in Criminal Application No.1486/2010, on instructions, requested to withdraw the application of the said applicants since they are minors, with liberty to file application for bail for them before Juvenile Justice Board, and prayed that no coercive action be taken against them till then. 3. Since both the present applications arise out of the same C.R. i.e. C.R. No.I-143/2009 and out of the same incident, both the present applications are being decided by this one and common order. 4. These are the two applications preferred by the applicants, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under C.R. No.143/2009, registered at Shirdi Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 5. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by complainant namely Ganesh Vasudeo Dighe i.e. brother of victim Mangesh on 5.10.2009. Therebefore, initially on 24.9.2009, the dead body of said victim Mangesh Dighe was found there in a well. Hence, A.D. came to be registered in that respect and the said dead body was sent for autopsy. The said fact was known to the complainant namely Ganesh Dighe, who lodged the F.I.R. as aforesaid. 6. It appears from the F.I.R. and investigation papers that, the deceased Mangesh was serving with one Transport firm, who allegedly eve-teased sister of one of the applicants and, therefore, the applicants assaulted him on the night of 22.9.2009. It is also alleged that, thereafter said deceased Mangesh escaped from the clutches of the applicants and hidden himself in Hotel Guruprasad at Shirdi, but he was chased by the applicants there and thereupon, the said victim Mangesh jumped from the first floor of the said hotel and ran away, and the applicants chased after him that time also. It is further alleged that, the deceased Mangesh was not found since then, and ultimately, his dead body was found in the well as aforesaid and it is alleged in the F.I.R. that due to apprehension of assault at the hands of the applicants, he committed suicide. 4 7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants urged that, as per post mortem notes, the cause of death of victim Mangesh is not clear and viscera is preserved and report thereof is awaited and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the victim committed suicide or it is a homicidal death and hence, it is submitted that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked and applicants herein cannot be tacked therewith. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that, the applicants had merely chased the victim because of eve-teasing to sister of one of the applicants, but they did not assault him and it is submitted that contents in respect of assault in the F.I.R. are false. 8. Mr. K.S. Patil, the learned A.P.P. as well as Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, learned counsel appearing for the original complainant opposed the present applications vehemently and submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on 5.10.2009 and the applicants were not available for investigation purpose and allegedly they were absconding. It is also submitted that there are three witnesses namely Sandeep Gavhane, Bhausaheb Gavhane and Sandeep Deokar who had seen the applicants with the victim Mangesh lastly together and the said statements of the witnesses connect the applicants with the alleged crime. It is also submitted that the 5 statement of Rahul Bankar, owner of Hotel Guruprasad has categorically stated that he saw the applicants chasing the victim Mangesh. Hence, the learned A.P.P. canvassed that there is no question of any false implication of the applicants and their custodial interrogation is necessary for further progress of investigation and, therefore, submitted that, present applications be rejected. 9. On perusal of the investigation papers, and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, it is apparent from the contents of the complaint that the names of applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 in Criminal Application No.1449/2010 have been reflected therein, who allegedly assaulted the victim by leg kicks and fist blows and hence, it is apparent that, there is no possibility of false implication of the said applicants in the alleged offence. Besides that, the statements of three witnesses namely Sandeep Gavhane, Bhausaheb Gavhane and Sandeep Deokar disclose that, the said applicants chased the victim Mangesh on the day of incident and further, the statement of Rahul Bankar, owner of Hotel Guruprasad also discloses that he saw the said applicants chasing the victim on the relevant day and the said statement also apparently involves the said applicants in the alleged crime. Besides that, although the 6 incident occurred on 5.10.2009, said applicants were not available for investigation purpose and allegedly they were absconding. Hence, in view of the said position, said applicants have failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail and, therefore, their custodial interrogation is necessary for the further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. 10. In the result, the Criminal Application No.1449/2010 stands dismissed in respect of applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 whereas the said application to the extent of applicant No.3 Papu @ Pankaj Sanjay Dushing as well as Criminal Application No. 1486/2010 preferred by the applicant Papu alias Prakash s/o Machindra Gondkar stand dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the said applicants to prefer application for bail, if any, before Juvenile Justice Board and it is directed that, no coercive action be taken against them till 3rd May 2010. 11. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri1449.10