Vikrant @ Sunil S/O Raju Dadar v. The State Of Maharashtra

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 416 OF 2016 Vikrant @ Sunil s/o Raju Dadar, Age: 22 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Arole Vasti, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar.

...Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

.....

Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for applicant Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for respondent .....

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2016 ORAL ORDER :

The applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.I-171 of 2014 registered with Jamkhed Police Station, Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

2.

Learned Counsel for the applicant, while trying to make out the case for grant of regular bail, would urge that the investigation is already complete and charge sheet is filed. According to him, the cause of death if is noticed in the present case, the applicant cannot

-2be held responsible and there is no prima facie material to connect him to the crime in question.

3.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the application on the ground that there is sufficient evidence on record so as to depicts that the applicant is prima facie involved in the crime in question. He has invited my attention to the contents of F.I.R. and other material placed on record.

4.

With the assistance, I have perused the charge sheet. In the present case, the cause of death cited is that of shock due to multiple injuries over face, neck, vital organ due to hard and sharp weapon.

5.

The present applicant is alleged to have used rod in the commission of crime in question. The said attribution against the applicant of use of rod co-relates with that of cause of death. 6.

Apart from above, there are eye witnesses to the incident, namely, Sanjay Vitkar, Nikhil Mukund Ghaytadak and Datta Vikas Shinde, who in clear terms narrated about active role played by present applicant in the crime in question. There is strong case against the present applicant. In my opinion, no case for grant of regular bail is made out.

-37.

In view of above, the application fails, stands rejected. [ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ] Tupe/15.02.16