1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2297 of 2009 Narendra 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 C.R. Thakur, Adv for applicant Mr D.P. Thakare, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 24th July 2009 1. Heard Mr Thakur, learned counsel for applicant and Mr D.P. Thakare, learned counsel for respondent-State. By this application, applicant prays for grant of bail in Crime No. 7/2009 reported at Police Station, Gitti Khadan, Nagpur for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute that accusations are serious in nature, but it is contended that in the First Information Report lodged by one Babua alias Nitin who was close relative of deceased Raja, names of three persons viz. Imran, Rakesh and Kunal were reported and the name of applicant did not figure as an assailant. Incident occurred on 3.9.2009 at about 09.00 pm for which a detailed report was lodged. It appears that on the following day, statement of one Nagamma Naidu was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who implicated the present applicant stating that applicant was seen running after she had seen two persons had caught hold of the victim Raja and 2 one was assaulting. When the witness shouted, she had seen four persons running. Thus, the applicant also came to be implicated on the allegation he was amongst assailants having common intention to kill the victim. 3. Learned APP objected grant of bail on the basis statement of Nagamma Naidu, contending that she clearly implicates applicant. At the same time, he does not dispute that name of applicant did not figure any where in the FIR. He points out from affidavit-in-reply that there are eight criminal cases registered against applicant and his past record is full of blemish. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in none of the cases applicant has been convicted and sentenced and that he has been granted bail in all the cases. He submits that two cases out of eight are by way of preventive action and gambling. 4. Be that as it may, merely because there are some criminal cases registered against the applicant, the same cannot be a ground to refuse him bail particularly when in none of the cases applicant has been convicted. In view of the fact that FIR did not find name of applicant as an assailant and the statement of Nagamma cannot be believed at this stage, it having been recorded on 4.1.2009 and vague, this is a fit case where applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Applicant be released on bail on his executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and try to influence witnesses in any manner. He shall attend the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight till the end of trial. Applicant shall leave his permanent address with the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and communicate change, if any therein, in future. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge. hsj