(1.) The applicants in Bail Application No. 1522 of 2019 are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.812 of 2019 registered with Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections 307 , 326 , 324 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 436 , 504 , 506 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 / 25 of the Arms Act. Their application with similar prayer bearing Criminal (Bail) M.A. No. 241 of 2019 came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda vide order dated 3.12.2019.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons. The applicants are in jail in connection with the present crime from 18.11.2019. Learned counsel submits that though names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR, however, allegations have been made mainly against co-accused Sharad and his wife Ranjana. There was a dispute in respect of the agricultural land between deceased Gorakh and co-accused Sharad, who happened to be the real brothers inter se. Learned counsel submits that in the FIR general allegations have been made, without referring names of the present applicants, to the effect that the other persons also set on fire the house of deceased Gorakh. Learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation, statement of Dropadabai was recorded. She is the mother of deceased Gorakh and co-accused Sharad. As per her statement, she has witnessed the actual incident. However, witness Dropadabai has also made allegations against co-accused Sharad and his wife Ranjana. She has stated in her statement that though she asked for help to the present applicants Vitthal Bhade and Dattatraya Bhade, they had not extended help. Learned counsel submits that even in the statement of the eye witnesses Swapnil @ Hanu Balasaheb Gore, Sachin Subhash Saikar, Ramdas Rajaram Chakane, Parshuram Namdeo Bhade and Tukaram Aba Raut, allegations have been made mainly against co-accused Sharad and his wife co-accused Ranjana. Learned counsel submits that even in the dying declarations of deceased Gorakh and deceased Surekha recorded belatedly, though they have taken names of the present applicants, the allegations have been made mainly against co-accused Sharad and co-accused Ranjana and it has been simply stated in their respective dying declarations that these applicants were also present there and they are also responsible for the incident. Learned counsel submits that applicants no.1 to 3 are from the brotherhood of the deceased so also co-accused Sharad. Learned counsel submits that on one occasion, applicant Nandkumar, on 01.06.2017, had lodged a complaint before the Police Inspector, Shrigonda Police Station, against deceased Gorakh in respect of some financial transaction between the father of the applicant Nandkumar and deceased Gorakh and threats being extended to the father of the applicant and the applicant Nandkumar himself on that count by deceased Gorakh. Learned counsel submits that the applicants are having a fixed place of residence. There is no criminal history. The applicants are ready to abide the conditions. The applicants may be released on bail
(3.) Learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the ground that names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR and deceased Gorakh and deceased Surekha have stated about their presence at the spot at the time of the incident. Learned APP submits that even the other eye witnesses have also referred names of these applicants. Learned APP submits that in the dying declarations, deceased Gorakh and deceased Surekha have specifically named the present applicants as the persons responsible for the incident along with co-accused Sharad and co-accused Ranjana. Prima facie, there is a strong case against the applicants. The applicants may not be released on bail. Learned APP has however fairly brought to the notice of this Court that the applicants are detected COVID positive in jail.