1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No.464/2011 Sanjay @Chhotu Mithailal Kaithwas Vs. State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri R.M. Daga, Adv. for the applicant. Shri N.R. Rode, APP for the respondent. CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 26/08/2011. 1] The applicant, who was arrested on 2.3.2011 in Amgaon Police Station Crime No. 26/2011 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 376 (2)(g), 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this application for regular bail after having failed to get bail from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia. 2] The respondent has filed reply resisting the application. 3] Heard arguments. Learned Advocate Shri Daga argued for the applicant whereas learned APP Shri Rode argued for the State. 4] It is noticed that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons as the deceased was found in an hanging condition in her house. Initially the death 2 was registered as accidental. It is seen from the records that none of the witnesses have named the present applicant though the names of the accused Hemraj, Bablu and Praful do appear in the records. Though it is mentioned that there were two more persons, however, none of the witnesses have stated that they are able to identify those two persons. No test identification parade has been conducted. 5] The report of Chemical Analyser in respect of the present applicant is also nil. Even the D.N.A. report though implicates Hemraj Khapre, Vijay @ Bablu Matere and Praful Shamkunwar, however, does not implicate the present applicant. 6] There is, therefore, absolutely no prima facie evidence against the applicant, in the charge-sheet , which has already been filed. 7] There is no doubt that offence is of serious nature, as contended by the learned APP. However, in view of the fact that there is absolutely no prima facie evidence found, in my view, the applicant is entitled for bail. I would like to make it clear that the case of other accused persons shall be dealt with independently on their own merits. 8] In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 3 26/2011 for offence punishable under Section 302, 376(2) (g), 201 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. , upon execution of personal recognition bond of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, under following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not enter the village Eigaon until further orders. (b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (c) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of this Court. (d) If any incriminating material is found against the applicant, liberty to the apply for cancellation. JUDGE Ambulkar.