abs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3141 OF 2007

Rajkumar Shripujan Bharati @

Raj Babasaheb Aitwade .. Applicant

V/s

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

Mr.Amin Solkar for the applicant.

Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State.

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.

DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2008

P.C.

P.C.

P.C. :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and

the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The applicant has been in custody since 31st

March 2007 in connection with an offence registered with

Kurundwad Police Station under C.R. No.11 of 2005

punishable under sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C.

3. The offence of murder was committed on 3rd March

2005 and the FIR was registered on 4th March 2005.

- 2 -

After investigation, the police were unable to identify

the dead body and were also unable to find out the

culprits. The police filed a report before the Judicial

Magistrate that the offence was undetected. The learned

Judicial Magistrate granted "A" Summary on 24th April

2006. Thereafter, the accused no.1 who is a friend of

the present applicant, was arrested and on the basis of

statement made by the accused no.1, the present

applicant has been arrested.

4. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the

crime. The present applicant is arrested on the basis

of statement of a co-accused and the statement by one

lady who alleges that she had last seen the applicant

with the deceased. However, she does not state anywhere

about the time gap between her last seeing the the

deceased with the applicant and the date of his death.

It is not clear from her statement whether she had seen

the applicant with the deceased just prior to his death

or several days or weeks prior to the death.

5. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the

application for bail made by the applicant on the ground

that the applicant originally hails from Bihar. The

applicant might have hailed from Bihar, but is presently

residing in Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur in the State

of Maharashtra. His address is shown as such in the

- 3 -

charge sheet. Mere fact that the applicant originally

hails from Bihar cannot be a ground for rejecting his

application for bail especially in the light of the

decision of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. State of

Moti Ram v. State of

Moti Ram v. State of

Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47

Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47

Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47. However,

in order to take care of the fear expressed by the

prosecution that the applicant might abscond, suitable

conditions can be imposed on the applicant while

granting bail. Hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER

ORDER

ORDER

The applicant shall