1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1085 of 2010 Manish v. State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr V.M. Deshpande, Adv for applicant Ms A.R. Taiwade, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 3rd September 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 2/2009 registered with Police Station, Yavatmal (City) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even though accusations are serious, name of the applicant did not figure in the First Information Report. He submits that investigation is complete and charge- sheet is also filed. No test identification parade was held. Learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application on the ground that deceased had sustained number of injuries which resulted into his death and that in his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Nilesh has stated that he had given knife to the applicant and he himself held sword and thereafter assault was made on the deceased. As regards 2 this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act distinctly leading to discovery of a fact is admissible in evidence and no other portion of the statement implicating himself and others with the crime is admissible in evidence. He relies upon Sukhvinder Singh & ors v. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 5 SCC 152. 3. Learned APP argued that there were two eye witnesses who knew the accused. I think, this submission cannot be accepted at this stage. Had there been two eye witnesses, name of the applicant would have appeared in the FIR. According to learned counsel for the applicant, statements of alleged eye witnesses were recorded on 12.1.2009 while incident had occurred on 2.1.2009. They were introduced witnesses to falsely implicate the applicant. 4. Be that as it may, name of the applicant does not figure in the FIR. Further more, although sufficient opportunity has been granted to learned APP, no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. That being so, I am inclined to grant conditional bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order. 5. Applicant be released on bail upon executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two or more sureties in the like amount with the further conditions that applicant shall not commit any crime while on bail and shall not carry any weapon with him. He shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and shall attend each date of hearing in the trial. Applicant is directed to leave his permanent address with 3 telephone/cellphone number (if any) with the Investigating Officer and shall communicate change therein, if any, in future. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Hamdast granted. Judge. hsj