VINOD BRAMHANAND MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the original complainant.

(2.) ON 13th August, 2008, a complaint under Sections 304A, 279 and 427 of the IPC was lodged at that Akkalkot North Police Station vide C.R.No.124/2008. In the said complaint, it was alleged that one jeep had ramped into a motorcycle and two persons riding the said motorcycle died on the spot. The occupants of the jeep ran away. Thereafter, the son of Ankush More filed the complaint alleging that he suspected that the present applicants were responsible for the death of those two persons and they had entered into a conspiracy to eliminate Ankush More. The prosecution case is that the father of applicants no.1 and 2 was murdered by Ankush More and others sometime in 1999 and they were convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Against the said order, they preferred an appeal in this court and the applicant and one Shaikh were acquitted. It is alleged that the present applicants had taken a oath to take revenge of the death of their father by eliminating the deceased Ankush More and had accordingly gave a contract to kill him. Prosecution case is that in furtherance of the said conspiracy, a jeep was purchased in the name of some other person and the monies were paid by the present applicant and others. Further the prosecution case is that other persons had overheard the applicants plotting to kill Ankush More. On the basis of the complaint filed by the son of Ankush More, an offence was registered under the provisions of Sections 302, 120B, 427 read with 34 of the IPC.

(3.) SINCE there is no direct evidence implicating the present applicants and the entire evidence is in the nature of circumstantial evidence alleging conspiracy, in my view, the applicants, under the circumstances, are entitled to be released on bail. Merely, because motive has been established by the prosecution, that alone is not sufficient to establish that the applicant was directly or indirectly responsible for the death of the deceased. The applicants, therefore, deserve to be released on bail.