LAKHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 135 of 2019 registered with Bembli Police Station, District Osmanabad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC . His application with similar prayer bearing Sessions Case No. 148 of 2019 came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad vide order dated 18.12.2019.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though name of the applicant is mentioned in the FIR, however, the same has been mentioned on the basis of the statement made by co-acused Anjali. Learned counsel submits that there are three eye witnesses to the incident, namely, Sameer Shaikh, Kewalbai Bhosale and Pinky Lakhan Kale. Witness Sameer has not mentioned name of the present applicant and ascribed the entire role to co-accused Anjali. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, witness Kewalbai is the mother of co-accused Anjali and witness Pinky Kale is the wife of the present applicant.

(3.) Learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the ground that immediately after the incident, co-accused Anjali has taken the name of the applicant and stated before the informant and the other witnesses that she herself, with the help of the present applicant, committed murder of deceased Ravi. Learned APP submits that there is an overt act on the part of the applicant. He had caught hold of deceased Ravi and thereafter co-accused Anjali had given blow of the axe on the head of deceased Ravi. Learned APP submits that there is a strong prima facie case against the applicant. He may not be released on bail. Learned APP submits that there is strong possibility of tampering of the prosecution evidence if the applicant is released on bail.