1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) No. 238/2011 ( Atul Manohar Suryawanshi .vs. State of Mah. through PSO PS Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. N.B. Bargat, Advocate for Applicant Mr. D.P. Thakre, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : APRIL 30, 2011 Heard. The charge sheet being filed in the matter, the learned APP has opted to argue the matter on the basis of the same without filing formal say. The applicant/accused charge sheeted by Kuhi Police Station in connection with Crime No.187/2010 registered on 5.11.2010 with the said Police Station for commission of offence under Sections 302, 307, 323 read with 34 of IPC of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for bail. The incident in which the said offence is alleged to have committed had occurred on 4.11.2010. On the said day the deceased Rahul Rangari, Rahul Kalaskar and Sarang Jagtap had been to the house of the applicant for questioning him regarding teasing of cousin sister of the deceased. The account of incident 2 as spelt out from the FIR and the statement of five witnesses does not reveal that applicant beyond giving a blow of hammer on the face of the deceased, had in any manner assaulted him. Thus considering the place at which and the manner in which the incident had occurred, prima facie there appears substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that it is doubtful that case of the applicant would be covered within the parameters of Section 34 of IPC and that he was entertaining an intention to kill the deceased. It can be further added that reference to the P.M. report reveals that death of Rahul Rangari had ensued due to the head injury, in all probability received due to the blow of sickle given by the other assailant. Having regard to the same and the co-accused playing some what similar role as that of applicant being released on bail, the prayer for bail made by the applicant will deserve consideration on the principle of parity. Having regard to the same, the prayer for bail made by the applicant though vehemently objected by the learned APP on the count of his involvement in the commission of such offence being borne from the material, deserves to be accepted. Hence the order. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.187/2010 of Police Station, Kuhi for offence under Sections 302, 307, 323 read with 34 of IPC upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lac) with one or more sureties to make that amount subject to the conditions that applicant - 3 (i) shall attend the Kuhi Police Station in between 11.00 am and 2.00 pm on everyday for a period of one month and thereafter on every alternate day for a period of next month and thereafter on every Monday until further orders, (ii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not leave the same without the permission of the trial court, (iii) shall not indulge in any activity of tampering prosecution evidence and/or indulge in any activity hampering the progress of the trial, (iv) shall not commit any offence while on bail. The application stands disposed of. Criminal APPP No. 434/2011 Heard. In view of disposal of main application, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE halwai