VILAS RAJESH MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.214 of 2019 registered with Ramanand Nagar Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 363, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. His application with similar prayer came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, vide order dated 11.08.2020 in Criminal Bail Application No.437 of 2020.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the infomant has no first hand information about the incident. It appears that after the dead body of deceased Vinod was found on the railway track, and his body was actually found in two pieces, initially the A.D. was registered and after the Post Mortem examination and cremation, on 22.12.2019, on the basis of the information received from two friends of deceased Vinod, namely Shekhar Mistri and Shubham Gosavi, the informant has lodged the complaint. The learned counsel submits that as per the allegations made in the complaint, deceased Vinod was having affair with the wife of co-accused Kailas, namely Poonam and therefore, co-accused Kailas and the present applicant, who are the real brothers interse, were searching deceased Vinod. The learned counsel submits that it appears from the statement of those two witnesses Shekhar Mistri and Shubham Gosavi respectively that on 20.12.2019, at about 4.00 p.m., near one petrol pump, co-accused Kailas, the present applicant had come and co-accused Kailas has questioned deceased Vinod about some recording and slapped him. According to these two witnesses, who were along with the deceased Vinod, co-accused Kailas and the present applicant took deceased Vinod along with them on their motorcycle. The learned counsel submits that it further appears from the statement of one Rahul Prakash Mahajan, who is the real brother of the said Poonam that on 20.12.2019, at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. co-accused Kailas, who happened to be his brother-in-law made a phone call on his mobile and called him in their house, situated at Rameshwar Colony. Even co-accused Kailas informed to him that they brought the said boy (deceased Vinod) at the house. The learned counsel submits that in the house co-accused Kailas, by questioning deceased Vinod, confirmed in presence of the said witness Rahul about his affair with Poonam. Thereafter, witness Rahul has returned to his house. The learned counsel submits that it has come in the statement of said Rahul that thereafter the present applicant has made a phone call to him again and called him with his mother in the house by informing that co- accused Kailas has become voilent and he would do something to the boy (deceased Vinod). The learned counsel submits that there was no reason for the applicant to make a phone call to the brother-in-law of co-accused Kailas, had there been any intention and also participation in the alleged commission of murder of deceased Vinod. The learned counsel submits that the Post Mortem Report of the dead body of the deceased Vinod speaks about the crush injury on the abdomen resulted into two body parts from abdomen and the said crush injury mentioned as ante mortem injury in column No.18(a). The learned counsel submits that there are no marks of violence on the body and the death is "due to Railway Accident with separation of the body into two parts from abdomen region". The learned counsel submits that there is no evidence even about the homicidal death. The learned counsel submits that the possibility of committing suicide by deceased Vinod because of the humiliation at the hands of co-accused Kailas cannot be ruled out. However, there is no further connecting evidence as to how the deceased went or brought to the railway track. The learned counsel submits that the applicant is in jail in connection with the present crime since 23.12.2019. There is no criminal history. The applicant is ready to furnish surety and also ready to abide the conditions, if imposed by this Court. The applicant may be released on bail.

(3.) The learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the ground that though the informant has no first hand information about the incident, however, witnesses Shekhar Mistri and Shubham Gosavi, who happened to be the friends of deceased Vinod were along with deceased till 4.00 p.m. on 20.12.2019. In their presence, co-accused Kailas had slapped deceased Vinod by questioning about the recording done by him. These two witnesses have also stated that the present applicant also accompanied co-accused Kailas at that time. The deceased was taken by co-accused Kailas and the present applicant along with them on the motorcycle. The learned APP submits that the deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the co-accused Kailas and the present applicant even at that spot and even in the house situated in Rameshwar Colony. The learned APP submits that the police statement of Rahul Prakash Mahajan further indicates that the deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the co-accused Kailas and the present applicant in the house of the present applicant situated at Rameshwar Colony. The learned APP submits that thereafter, the dead body of deceased Vinod was found on the railway track on the next day, at about 1.55 a.m. The learned APP submits that during the course of investigation, statement of one Ajay Sonawane was recorded. On 20.12.2019, deceased Vinod met him and informed that the said Poonam called to him on his mobile and informed him that co-accused Kailas, the present applicant and Bhushan Mahajan have decided to kill deceased Vinod. Prima facie, there is a strong case against the applicant. The applicant may not be released on bail.