BALASAHEB @ BABASAHEB BALIRAM BANGAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 160 of 2019 registered with Ghodegaon Police Station, Pune Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC).

(2.) It reveals from the First Information Report that deceased Santosh Namdev Vharkate and the applicant were working in the postmortem department, Rural Hospital, Chakan as a cutter with Dr. Pravinkumar Pandurang Ingale. The prosecution alleges that as the deceased had used abusive language against the wife of applicant, the applicant with the help of other co-accused assaulted deceased by sickle near Rural Hospital, Chakan. The accused wrapped the dead body of the deceased in a plastic bag, shifted it in a santro car and later on threw his body in a valley with an intention to cause the evidence disappear.

(3.) Mr.Nikam, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and also invited my attention to the statements of prosecution witnesses, namely, Ravi Suresh Lohire and Amol Dharma Ingale. Besides, learned Counsel also invited my attention to the discovery statement given by the applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. According to learned Counsel, there was a huge time gap between the alleged incident and the discovery of the dead body and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that it was the applicant who committed the murder of deceased. There are no other criminal antecedents. Investigation is over. Hence, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, submitted learned Counsel.