abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2948 OF 2007 Dr.Arvind Vitthal Lokhande .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi i/b Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State. Mr.Nitin Pradhan i/b Ms.S.D. Khot for the original complainant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also granted leave and heard Mr.Pradhan, who appears for the original complainant - father of the deceased. 2. The applicant is charged with an offence of murder of Sanjeev Kamble (Crime No. 27/2007 registered with Sangli City Police Station) punishable under section 302 read with sections 120-B, 109 and 34 of the - 2 - Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short is that the applicant suspected that the deceased Sanjeev had illicit relationship with his estranged wife. On account of this, the applicant conspired with Raju @ Pradeep Patil (accused no.2) and with the help of hirelings (accused nos.3 to 5) killed the deceased. 4. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the crime. Accused no.2 was granted bail by this Court (myself) by an order dated 12th December 2007 passed in Criminal Application No.2944 of 2007. That order has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by rejecting Special Leave to Appeal in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2455 of 2008 decided on 22nd February 2008. The case of the present applicant is not much different from the case of the accused no.2. Both of them are alleged to have conspired for killing of the deceased. 5. The applicant is in custody for more than a year. The police have recorded statements of 86 witnesses. Even if some of them are dropped at the hearing, the possibility of the trial being over in near future with so many witnesses is remote. - 3 - 6. Taking an overall view of the matter and taking into consideration the fact that there is no eye witness and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence, and also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is a doctor by profession and has residence and dispensary in the same town and has two children, one of whom is minor aged 9 years, to look after, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER ORDER ORDER The applicant be released on bail in connection with the offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two local sureties to make up the aggregate amount of Rs.1,00,000/- subject to the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall report to the Sangli City Police Station once a month between 1st and 5th day of every month. (b) The applicant shall attend the Sessions Court on every date fixed for the trial and shall not cause any delay in the hearing of the case. (c) The applicant shall not change his residence nor - 4 - shall leave the Sangli District without informing the police. (d) The applicant shall not make any inducement nor give any threats to any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner. . It is clarified that all observations made in this order are only prima facie and the court at the trial shall not be in any way influenced by the observations made herein. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)