SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 180 of 2019 registered with Murud Police Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with 34 of IPC . His application with similar prayer below Exhibit 13 in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2020 came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge, Latur vide order dated 27.05.2020.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the investigation is now over and the charge sheet has been submitted. The prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the confessional statement of co-accused Sachin allegedly made by him before the informant, who happened to be the police officer, there is no connecting evidence against the applicant. Learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of one Balaji Ingale and Balaji Shinde. They have only noticed co-accused Sachin along with his car at about 11.00 p.m. on 08.11.2019 near one beer bar and at that time, deceased Krushna Panchal was noticed by them sitting on the back seat of the car along with two other boys. However, these two witnesses neither gave names of those two boys nor identified them. Learned counsel submits that even the Investigating Officer has not conducted the identification parade so far as the present applicant is concerned. Learned counsel submits that on the same set of allegations, this Court has released accused no.4 Shubham Ingale. Learned counsel submits that it is also not clear from the post mortem report whether the deceased met with homicidal death. Learned counsel submits that even assuming that the dead body of the deceased, which was cut into pieces, came to be recovered at the instance of co- accused Sachin, however, at the time of said recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, even if co-accused Sachin has taken name of the present applicant, the same is not admissible in evidence. There is no criminal History. The applicant is available for trial. He has a fixed place of residence. There is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant may be released on bail.

(3.) Learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the ground that at the instance of co-accused Sachin, on whose confessional statement the police machinery was set in motion, the dead body of the deceased, which was cut into pieces, came to be recovered. Learned APP submits that in the memorandum of panchanama and the recovery panchanama drawn under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for recovery of the said pieces of the dead body, co-accused Sachin has taken the name of present applicant as a participant in actual commission of the crime. Learned APP submits that so far as co-accused Shubham is concerned, who has been released on bail, as per the disclosure made by co-accused Sachin, he has only helped him in causing disappearance of the evidence and not actually participated in commission of the murder. Learned APP submits that in a very brutal manner, the applicant and the co-accused persons have committed murder of the applicant. The applicant may not be released on bail.