RAYAGONDA BALGONDA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Shri Singhal, the learned A.P.P. waives service of rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. The applicants accused have filed this application and prayed for bail. The documents viz. the F.I.R. filed by Sou. Harshala Mahesh Inamdar dated 13-4-1999 and the statement of this witnesses recorded during the investigation viz. statement of Sharad Ramchandra Yadav and Parshuram Sitaram Kamble are perused and I was taken through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli dated 29-5-1999 and perused the medical certificate of Shri R.B. Patil dated 22-1-1999. The offence has occured on 12-4-1999 in respect of murder of Vijay Inamdar for which Sou. Harshala Inamdar has filed the complaint before MIDC, Kupwad Police Station on the next day i.e. on 13-4-1999 and on going through the complaint it is found that she learnt about the incident from some villagers on 13-4-1999 at about 8 a.m. that on the Kupwad Bamnoli Road, some person has been found murdered in a stream-let. Accordingly the complainant and her mother-in-law went to the spot and saw the dead body of her brother-in-law Vijay and she found that Vijay had injury on his head and his brain was also visible. Accordingly the complaint was filed against unknown person who has assaulted her brother-in-law Vijay with some weapon. The investigation was started and during the investigation the police has recorded statement of Sharad Ramchandra Yadav on 16-4-1999 as well as the statement of Parshuram Sitaram Kamble on the very day. On the strength of the statement of these two witnesses, the police has arrested the applicants on the very day viz. on 16-4-1999. The application for bail was moved at the instance of the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli and the learned Sessions Judge has, on considering the submissions, further recorded that deceased Vijay was involved in the murder of son of applicant No.1 Shri Rayagonda Balgonda Patil and considering that there is a strong motive and further the learned Judge has considered the statement of the eye-witnesses and the extra-judicial confession of the applicant accused has rejected the application as per order dated 29-5-1999. Accordingly the present application for bail is filed which is pending before this court since 18-6-1999 and the matter was heard yesterday and the matter was kept for hearing today.

(2.) SHRI Mohite while taking me through the complaint as well as the statement of two witnesses viz. Sharad Ramchandra Yadav and Parshuram Sitaram Kamble has submitted that as per the prosecution case, Vijay was succumbed to death on 12-4-1999 and the complainant was informed by some villagers on the next day i.e. On 13-4-1999 at about 8 a.m. and the complainant and her mother-in-law went to the spot where they saw Vijay having injury on head. Accordingly complainant Harshala had while complained in respect of the said offence before the police against some unknown person on the next day i.e. on 13-4-1999.

(3.) WITHOUT expressing anything on the statement of Sharad Yadav and the statement of Parshuram Sitaram where the applicant accused has made confession about the crime at this stage, the court is inclined to release the applicant accused on bail by imposing certain conditions. The fact that the applicant No.1 whose son was murdered and the deceased was also arrested in connection with the said offence. Even at this juncture, the court is also not required to consider the motive to the crime. The incident in question has occured on 12-4-1996 and as per the complaint, the said complaint was filed against the unknown person and after four days Sharad Ramchandra who is an eye witness to the incident gives the statement and on the very day the statement of Parshuram Sitaram Kamble was recorded, wherein the confessional statement of the accused were made before him. Considering these facts, this court is inclined to release the applicants accused by imposing certain conditions.