1 crap3910.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3910 OF 2011 (Dnyaneshwar s/o Manikrao Dhale vs. The State of Maharashtra) _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.S.Londhe, advocate for the applicant Shri B.V.Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 23rd September, 2011. PER COURT :- 1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties finally. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant, namely Dnyanehshwar Manikrao Dhale seeking regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 72 of 2011, registered at Basamba police station, Taluka and Dist. Hingoli, for the offences punishable 2 crap3910.11 under Sections 307, 395, 341, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3 It appears that crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Pandit Laxmanrao Dhale on 11.8.2011 in respect of the occurrence of the incident on the same day. 4 On perusal of the contents of the said first information report, it appears that the name of the applicant has been reflected in the first information report and role attributed to him during the occurrence of the incident is that he allegedly assaulted by iron rod on the legs of injured Pramod and not beyond that. Although injury certificate of Pramod was not available for inspection purpose, his statement was recorded on 24.8.2011 and same was made available for inspection purpose, which is in consonance with the contents of the afore said 3 crap3910.11 complaint. Moreover, alleged assault by the applicant on the legs of Pramod does not not appear to be on the vital part of the body, and therefore, his application can be considered for grant of bail. 5 Moreover, it is reported that the applicant was arrested on 11.8.2011 and he is in judicial custody presently. Besides, the alleged iron rod was also discovered at the instance of the applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 11.8.2011. Hence, apparently the investigation has been almost completed in respect of the present applicant, and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail, but on certain conditions. 6 In the result, present application is allowed and the applicant Dnyaneshwar Manikrao Dhale be released on bail, in connection with C.R. No. 72 of 2011, registered at Basamba police station, Taluka and District Hingoli, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like 4 crap3910.11 amount, on the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall give attendance before the concerned investigator once in a week i.e. on every Monday between 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. (ii) The applicant shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 7 It is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. 8 The present application stands disposed of finally. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3910.11