1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 2572 OF 2009 Shri Vishal Chhagan Rahigude .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Vishwanath S. Talkute, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 07/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. 307 of 2008 of Phaltan Police Station, Dist-Satara. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and one another for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302 and 212 of IPC. 3. Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited my attention to the statement of Jaykumar Shankarrao Pawar and also to the spot panchanama. A bare perusal of the statement of Jaykumar Shankaraoo Pawar, shows T 2 that it is a statement of an eye-witness. The spot panchanama shows that Jaykumar Shankaraoo Pawar was also one of the punchas. In the first paragraph of the panchanama, it is clearly mentioned that one Jaykumar alias Jayant Vithal Sonawane was an eye-witness. According to the learned APP, there is only one eye-witness to the incident. If what has been recorded in the panchanam is correct, then Jaykumar Shankarrao Pawar may not be an eye-witness. To explain this confusion, the learned APP was granted time with specific directions to keep the investigating officer present in the court. Today, Mr. Pednekar, learned APP, submits that despite repeated messages given to I.O he has not turned up. He further submits that since the I.O was not responding, a message was also given to the Dy. S. P., Phaltan Division, Phaltan. Despite all these efforts, the I.O has not turned up and, therefore, he is unable to render any assistance. From bare perusal of the statement of the eye- witness and the spot panchanam, it is clear that Jaykumar Shankarao Pawar, whose statement was supplied with the chargesheet, was either not an eye-witness or there was error on the part of the investigating agency in mentioning the names. It is not clear whether Jaykumar Shankarao Pawar and Jaykumar @ Jayant Vithal Sonwane are two persons. The panchanama shows them as two independent persons. If they are two 3 different persons, then Jaykumar Shankarao Pawar cannot claim to be an eye-witness. In this view of the matter, I have no option but to grant this application for bail. Hence, the following order. The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every Saturday between 6 and 7 pm till conclusion of the trial. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, for information. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 4