SM 1 901.ba.444.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 444 OF 2011 Damodar Dharma Patil ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtara ....Respondent ____________ Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/b Mr. Rahul Arole for the Applicant. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State. Mr. N. N. Patil, Advocate for the First Informant/original Complainant. CORAM: A. M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 5 ST JULY, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Pasbola, the learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mrs. S. D. Shinde, learned APP for the Respondent - State. I have also heard Mr. N. N. Patil, the learned Advocate for the First Informant, who was permitted to appear and make submissions opposing the Application for bail. He files affidavit of one Mr. Naresh Balaram Patil, brother of the deceased, which is taken on record. 2. I have gone through the F.I.R. and the copy of the Charge-sheet that is annexed to the Bail Application. The role that has been attributed to the Applicant is of holding the deceased at SM 2 901.ba.444.11 the time of the incident. It appears that the Applicant held the deceased and the other Accused Mr. Rajndra Dharma Patil, then assaulted the deceased on his right elbow and left buttock with a sharp weapon. The notes of the postmortem examination show that the cause of death was opined to be " Death due to hemorrhagic shock due to stab wound on left buttock". Thus, it is clear that the deceased died as a result of the said assault. 3. The fact remains that the blow was not given on a vital part of the body of the victim. The role attributed to the Applicant which is merely of holding the deceased to facilitate the blow to be given by the co-Accused, has to be viewed in this background. 4. The Applicant is in custody since 7th November, 2010. In my opinion, his case should be treated differently from the case of the co-Accused, for the purpose of bail. 5. The police did not report regarding any antecedents of the Applicant. However, the learned Advocate for the First Informant has submitted that two cases were registered against the Applicant in the past. The details thereto are annexed to the Affidavit filed by the brother of the deceased. Regarding these two cases, Mr. Pasbola submits that the first one has resulted in SM 3 901.ba.444.11 acquittal; and the second one relates to the allegation of cruelty made by the wife of the Applicant. Mr. Pasbola submits that the wife is now residing with the Applicant. 6. Mr. Pasbola submits, when specifically questioned, that the Applicant is ready to give an undertaking that he will not reside at Panvel taluka or enter the same for any reason whatsoever, except with the express permission of the Court, till the disposal of the case against him. Considering this, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail. 7. The Application is allowed. 8. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) with one surety in like amount or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, on the condition that the Applicant shall not reside at a place situate within Panvel taluka and that the shall not enter the territorial limits of Panvel taluka for any reason whatsoever, except with the express permission of the Court, till the disposal of the case against him. (A. M. THIPSAY, J.)