1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1225 of 2010 Ganesh v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr P.V. Vaidya, Adv and Mr D.R.Bhoyar, Advocate with him for applicant Mr Adgokar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 1.9.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 283/09 registered with Police Station, Hinganghat for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is alleged that he had along with co-accused formed unlawful assembly and hatched criminal conspiracy in order to commit murder of one Deorao at his farm-house. It is alleged that the present applicant, a contract killer, is instrumental to sever the head of deceased Deorao and “Sattu”, weapon of offence is recovered at the instance of the applicant from the well. 3. Learned APP states that there is no eye witness of the incident. No evidence, direct in nature, could be pointed out by the learned APP and prima facie, there appears to be no convincing 2 circumstantial evidence existing against the applicant. Applicant was arrested on 15.7.2010 while police obtained alleged confessional statement of co-accused Baban on 18.7.2010 showing accusing finger towards the applicant. The statement of Manager of near-by “Dhaba” that applicant along with his associates had a dinner during the relevant night, is a far-fetched circumstantial evidence at this stage. Another objection to grant of bail is that applicant is involved in many criminal cases. Learned counsel for the applicant as against this submits applicant has not been convicted in any of the crimes. Thus, to my mind, pendency of criminal cases would not militate against the applicant unless prima facie involvement of the applicant is established in the present case. Moreover, C.A. Report is in the negative as nothing incriminating against the applicant could be pointed out therefrom by learned APP. Observation by the learned Sessions Judge who rejected the bail plea of the applicant is that C.A. Report was then to be received and accusations against the applicant were serious in nature. 4. In the light of the above discussion, in my opinion, applicant deserves to be released on conditional bail. Hence, the following order. 5. Applicant be released on bail upon his executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two or more sureties in the like sum. Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence; he will not commit any crime while on bail; shall not carry any weapon with him and shall not misuse liberty of bail in any manner. Applicant is directed to leave his fixed address along with telephone/cellphone 3 number (if any) with the Investigating Officer and with the Trial Court and shall communicate change therein, if any, in future. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge. joshi