1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 128 /2010 [Joginder Bisandev Rana vs. State of Maharashtra) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr Nirbhay Chawhan Adv. h/for Mr M Anil Kumar Adv. for applicant Mr C N Adgokar, APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : MARCH 8, 2010 . Heard. 2 By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.124/2009 reported at Ballarpur Police Station, Chandrapur for offence punishable under sections 302, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and that the FIR did not specifically name him but name one Rana, imputing the role to the applicant in the crime that he was armed with stick and that a stick was recovered in the course of investigation. 3 Learned APP submits that earlier bail application was moved before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge which was rejected by a reasoned order on 21.12.2009 in Sessions Case No.127/2009. The bail is also objected on the ground that there are statements of some eye witnesses who have seen the incident and if 2 accused is released on bail, there is possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The deceased had died on account of six injuries as a result of shock due to injury on vital organs such as, head as well as chest. 4. It appears that the present applicant is native of Hazaribagh District in State of Jharkhand ; whereas he has given his address as R/o Rani Laxmi Ward Ballarpur. With such insufficient address which appears insufficient and vague address without house number, identification of lane, area etc, it would indeed be risky to grant bail to such a person as it would be difficult to secure his presence at the time of trial. Otherwise also since there is evidence of alleged eye witnesses, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer for bail as there was likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. That being so, I am not inclined to grant bail. However, the trial Court is expected to complete hearing of the sessions case as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. Application is rejected. JUDGE sahare