1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4001 OF 2010 Japaram Aslaji Parmar Age 57 years, Occu.Business, R/o Jumliggani (Bithuda), Taluka Shivgaonj Dist.Shirohi (Rajasthan), Now R/o Jagtap Building, Mangalwar Peth, Tuljapur, Taluka Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr V.D.Salunke, Advocate for applicant Mr K.S.Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 18th November 2010 PER COURT : 1. The applicant is an accused in Crime No.60/2010 registered by the Tuljapur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that Section 394, 328 and 323 have been deleted at the time of filing of the charge sheet. 2. A complaint came to be filed against the present applicant and unknown persons by the complainant alleging therein that some unknown persons had committed robbery in his shop and had inflicted certain injuries to him. In the complaint, the complainant had stated that if the assailants are shown to him he would be in a position to identify them. 2 Unfortunately, the complainant succumbed to the injuries on the same day i.e. on 19th May 2010. The applicant came to be arrested and during the investigation, nothing has been recovered from the applicant, which would establish any nexus whatsoever with the commission of the offence. No test identification parade has been held. In fact, there are no eye witnesses to the incident as according to the complainant, the complainant and the assailants were alone present in the shop. 3. Opposing the bail application, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that the present applicant and the complainant had financial dealings and the applicant had certain injuries on his person when he was arrested. After perusing the charge-sheet the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that apart from these two circumstances there are no other circumstances connecting the applicant with the commission of the offence. Mr Salunke, learned Counsel for the applicant has stated before me that the applicant is aged about 60 years and the complaint of the complainant states that the persons who had committed robbery and had caused injuries to the complainant were in the age group of 25 to 38 years. If the applicant was known to the complainant obviously, the name of the applicant would have been mentioned by the complainant. It is, therefore, urged before me that there is absolutely no material, which would implicate the present applicant in the said crime. 3 4. Undisputedly, the complaint came to be lodged against unknown persons. Nothing has been recovered from the applicant, which would establish any nexus of the applicant with the commission of the offence. Additionally, I find that the complaint is against persons in the age group of 25 to 38 years while the applicant is aged 60 years. Apart from that the applicant was known to the complainant as there were financial dealings between the applicant and the complainant. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, therefore, according to me the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on applicant executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below in Crime No.60/2010. The applicant shall not influence the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Application allowed accordingly. Service by Hamdust allowed. ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4001.10criappln)