1 BA 1355-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1355 OF 2011 Annu Siddique Ali Shaikh .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.S.B.Shetye, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.J.P.Kharge, APP, for the Respondent  State Mrs.Namrata Patil, Dy.S.P., Khalapur Division, District Raigad CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for bail by a person, who is arrested and charge sheeted in connection with C.R.No.174 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Khopoli Police Station, Khopoli, District Raigad. The allegation is that the applicant and one 2 BA 1355-2011 Gautam Jagtap were engaged by the principal accused to assault Malpani. The applicant is alleged to have told Gautam Jagtap about location and whereabouts of Malpani on mobile phone. The applicant was arrested on 4 th March, 2011. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that there is no evidence to show that the applicant had made any call on the morning of 27 th November, 2010 to Gautam Jagtap. 3. The learned APP submitted that the investigating officer had collected call details from mobile Companies and pages 152 to 587 out of the compilation are, in fact, details of calls made between various numbers. The details about calls made or received on a mobile seized from the applicant bearing IMEI No.35150104574678 with Mobile No.8806670997 are at page 564 of the compilation. A mobile phone was seized from Gautam Jagtap bearing No.8956661741. There is no call between these 3 BA 1355-2011 two numbers reflected on page 564. The learned Counsel, therefore, states that there is nothing to show that there was any communication between the two persons. 4. The learned APP states that the investigating officer in this case was present in the morning and she left because of some presssing duty. She states that she would file an Affidavit explaining the position. Now, since the entire chargesheet is before me, & after investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed whatever is in the chargesheet cannot be altered and an Affidavit is unlikely to result in any change in the material which is already before the Court. Given the nature of allegations made against the applicant and the evidence collected, applicant's being in custody pending the trial may not be necessary. Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in 4 BA 1355-2011 the aggregate sum of Rs.25,000/- till the trial is over. 5. Criminal Application stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)