IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINALAPPLICATION NO. 1019/2008 Satish Wamanrao Gujar vs. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 22 nd APRIL, 2008. Heard Shri M.Anilkumar, Advocate, for the applicant and Smt. Khade, A.P.P. for respondent State. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The crime registered against the applicant is for the offences punishable u/s 363, 364, 307, 343, 385, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC bearing Crime No. 132/2007 of Police Station Mul, Distt. Chandrapur. The allegations against the applicant are serious i.e. he had assisted the other accused namely Rajesh Tupkar (applicant in Criminal Application No. 990/2008) for committing the offence of kidnapping and other offences in respect of the boy Abhirup from his auto-rickshaw. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant did not take part in any way in commission of the said offence by the other co-accused. The evidence and the allegations which are against the applicant are that, he had pointed out the other co- accused the boy to be kidnapped by putting his hand on the head of the said boy Abhirup. However, the learned A.P.P. is unable to point out such averment in any of the statement of the witnesses. Learned A.P.P. has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2008 All M R (Cri) 140, Nafiyaz Sheikh s/o Naruddin Mamlekar vs. State of Goa, to contend that the confessional statement of one of the accused can be relied upon for drawing the inference against the other accused as regards conspiracy and participation of all the accused persons in kidnapping for ransom. On perusal of the said decision, it appears that it refers to the confessional statement of the accused. In the present case, learned A.P.P. is unable to point out that there is any such confessional statement of the accused. The statement referred by the learned A.P.P. appears to be the statement of the accused made to the police officer. In these circumstances, although the allegations against the applicant are serious, he cannot be denied bail as there is no concrete and cogent evidence to connect him with the said offence except that of the acquaintance with the other accused and the statement of mere suspicion by the father of the said boy Abhirup. It is obvious that the acquaintance of the accused may not specifically lead to the conclusion of the guilt of the other accused. Many a times, it may be innocent acquaintance. However, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the bail would be subject to conditions. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mul, Distt. Chandrapur, on every Sunday between 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. until further orders and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall attend the trial regularly. Bail in trial Court. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and shall not influence the trial Judge in any way while deciding the matter on merits. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Rvj.