1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.133/2011 (Gopal Mahadeoraoji Karnake .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for applicant, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 17, 2011 Reply tendered by the learned APP is taken on record. Heard. The applicant/accused charge sheeted by Sewagram Police Station, District–Wardha for commission of offences under sections 448, 336, 427, 324, 302, 109, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as a result of investigation of Crime No.227/2010 of the said Police Station for offences committed, incident which had occurred on 5.10.2010 at two places i.e. firstly at the Bus Stand of Digras and secondly at the house of the deceased, has pressed the prayer for bail by urging that though the applicant is charged of having committed such offences in furtherence of common intention of all the charge sheeted accused, hardly there exists any material prima facie revealing the applicant was 2 entertaining any common intention to commit the murder of the deceased. It is urged that entire charge sheet does not contain any material even prima facie to reveal that the applicant, at any point of time, had assaulted the deceased or instigated main accused to assault deceased. It is urged that considering the material in the charge sheet in shape of two eye witnesses i.e. first informant and his father Babarao, regarding incident which had occurred at Bus Stand and so also in shape of the matters stated in the first information report by the first informant and one Yogesh Hore for incident which had occurred at the house of deceased, the same even prima facie does not transcend beyond the co-accused Rajesh Karnake, person aggrieved on the count of liquor being not served to him by Babarao was responsible for assaulting deceased. It is urged that even the order passed by the Court of Sessions also reveals that in spite of such position, the application for bail made by the applicant was rejected only on the ground of there being likelihood of prosecution evidence getting tampered. The perusal of the material in the case diary and the order passed by the Court of Sessions annexed with the application prima facie reveals of there being substance in submission canvassed. The learned APP was also not able to pinpoint any material from the case diary for prima facie coming to the conclusion that the deceased attacked in furtherence of the common intention of all charge sheeted accused. 3 Having regard to the same and since apprehension expressed by the prosecution of tampering prosecution evidence can be taken care of by imposing proper conditions, the prayer for bail will deserves consideration. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with said crime upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two separate solvent sureties in the like amount and subject to the conditions that applicant - (i) after his release on bail, shall not stay within the local limits of Digras village, shall intimate his place of abode to the investigating officer, shall not change the same without the permission of the trial Court and shall also attend the local Police Station within whose jurisdiction he would be staying in between 11 am and 1 pm on every Monday for a period of three months and, thereafter, on first Monday of every month until further orders; (ii) shall not indulge in any activity of tampering prosecution evidence and/or indulge in any activity of hampering the progress of the trial, (iii) shall not commit any offence while on bail. Nothing in aforesaid order should be construed as an opinion expressed by the Court upon the merits of the prosecution case. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE Gulande