LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Ms. A. S. Jadhav holding for Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar for the applicant in Criminal Application No.1891 of 2020. For the reasons stated in the application, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B". Criminal application accordingly disposed off.

(2.) The applicants are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.150 of 2019 registered with Shiruranantpal Police Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act. Their application with similar prayer below Exh.8 in Sessions Case No.2 of 2020 came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicants are in jail in connection with the present crime since 04.10.2019. The learned counsel submits that though the names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR, however, no specific role has been ascribed to them. The learned counsel submits that there is a longstanding enmity on account of the dispute in respect of the agricultural land and even the civil suit is also pending before the Court. The learned counsel submits that in a supplementary statement recorded belatedly i.e. on 14.10.2019 and for the first time, the informant has ascribed a role to these applicants as an instigator. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that even though the informant for the first time ascribed a specific role as an instigator to these applicants in his supplementary statement, however, the other injured eye witnesses are silent even about the presence of these applicants on the spot at the time of alleged incident.