1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No.337/2011 ( Sadashiv s/o Undaru Borkar & others ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar & Mr. V.R. Thote, Advs. for the applicants. Mr. N.R. Rode, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 12.7.2011. 1. This is an application for releasing the applicants on regular bail against whom the offence bearing Crime No.5/2011 under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered with the police station Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara. 2. The applicant no.1 and the deceased belong to same family and are neighbours. The incident occurred on 25/1/2011. One day prior to the incident the deceased had abused the wife of applicant no.1. 3. On the same day in the afternoon Ratiram who is Police Patil lodged the F.I.R. It is based upon the information, he received from Jondru, the Peon of the Village Panchayat. After offence was registered, the police recorded statement of Jondru on second day of the incident i.e. on 27/1/2011. According to him, when he visited the place of residence of the deceased, he learnt that the applicant no.1 had killed the deceased. That is why in initial stage of investigation only the name of applicant no.1 surfaced 2 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara relied upon the statement of one Sukhdeo Meshram whose statement was recorded on next day of the incident. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that on reading the statement of Sukhdeo, it would appear contradictory to entire prosecution case. He has stated about presence of one Ramkrushna whereas Ramkrushna stated that he was not present at the scene of occurrence nor he had witnessed the incident. It is well settled principle that the detailed examination of the evidence is not called for while deciding bail application. 6. There are broad circumstances like the quarrel had taken place between the applicant no.1 and the deceased. It was on account of the deceased having had abused wife of applicant no.1 on the earlier day of the incident. Learned A.P.P. produced for my perusal the case diary. There is a statement of Shilabai, the wife of applicant no.1. She spoke about her husband giving blows of stick on the person of the deceased and according to her at that time her both sons were in the house. In the statement of Sukhdeo Meshram it is not appearing that the applicant no.2 hit the deceased either with stick or with stone. In the postmortem report the injuries found on the person of the deceased were in the nature of lacerated wounds. There is recovery of the weapon of assault from applicant no.1 and from applicant no.3. Nothing is recovered from the applicant no.2. Applicant no.2 is just aged about 20 years. 7. Considering the state of evidence, strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant nos.1 and 3. 8. The application, so far it relates to applicant no.1 - Sadashiv s/o 3 Undaru Borkar and applicant no.3 - Peeram s/o Sadashiv Borkar, is rejected. 9. Applicant no.2 Kiran @ Babalu s/o Sadashiv Borkar is directed to be released on bail on his executing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties in the like amount with a condition that he shall not enter the village Morgaon till the trial is completed. JUDGE Tambaskar.