abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3141 OF 2007 Rajkumar Shripujan Bharati @ Raj Babasaheb Aitwade .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Amin Solkar for the applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant has been in custody since 31st March 2007 in connection with an offence registered with Kurundwad Police Station under C.R. No.11 of 2005 punishable under sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. 3. The offence of murder was committed on 3rd March 2005 and the FIR was registered on 4th March 2005. - 2 - After investigation, the police were unable to identify the dead body and were also unable to find out the culprits. The police filed a report before the Judicial Magistrate that the offence was undetected. The learned Judicial Magistrate granted "A" Summary on 24th April 2006. Thereafter, the accused no.1 who is a friend of the present applicant, was arrested and on the basis of statement made by the accused no.1, the present applicant has been arrested. 4. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the crime. The present applicant is arrested on the basis of statement of a co-accused and the statement by one lady who alleges that she had last seen the applicant with the deceased. However, she does not state anywhere about the time gap between her last seeing the the deceased with the applicant and the date of his death. It is not clear from her statement whether she had seen the applicant with the deceased just prior to his death or several days or weeks prior to the death. 5. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application for bail made by the applicant on the ground that the applicant originally hails from Bihar. The applicant might have hailed from Bihar, but is presently residing in Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur in the State of Maharashtra. His address is shown as such in the - 3 - charge sheet. Mere fact that the applicant originally hails from Bihar cannot be a ground for rejecting his application for bail especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. State of Moti Ram v. State of Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47 Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47 Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47. However, in order to take care of the fear expressed by the prosecution that the applicant might abscond, suitable conditions can be imposed on the applicant while granting bail. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (b) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station once a week on every Monday between 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. (c) Any breach of the above conditions shall result in cancellation of bail. (d) Application is disposed of. - 4 - (D.G. KARNIK, J.)