1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.970 OF 2010 Vijay s/o Dagadu Lahane ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.B. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mrs. Vaishali More, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 15th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with the offence registered under C.R. No.198/2009, at Kadim Jalna Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It appears that, complaint was lodged by one Ramakant Harishchandra Shukla, resident of Jalna on 11.11.2009, alleging that, while he was traveling on 10.11.2009 on a motorcycle from Jalna-Aurangabad Road to his house at about 8.15 p.m., he was apprehended by some three persons and he was threatened and assaulted by them by wooden stick on head, by which he sustained head injury. It is also alleged that, the said three persons broke open the Dickey of the motorcycle and robbed a cash amount of Rs.15,000/-, a mobile phone and two cheques of L.I.C. and driving licence etc. Accordingly, in pursuance of the complaint lodged by the said complainant, the applicant came to be arrested on 11.11.2009 under the said C.R. No.198/2009 along with the co-accused persons. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the applicant had preferred the bail application No.918/2009 before filing the charge sheet, but same was rejected on 19.11.2009 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna. The learned counsel also submitted that the applicant along with co-accused had preferred another bail application bearing No.2/2010, but the same was partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna on 8.1.2010 i.e. after filing of the charge sheet and co- accused Bhausaheb Rangnath Wankhede was released by 3 the said order. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant filed third bail application bearing No.138/2010, but same also was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna on 2.3.2010, observing that the co-accused Bhausaheb stands on different footing than the applicant herein. In the said context, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and, therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more. 4. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application and submitted that the cash amount of Rs. 13,000/- was recovered from the applicant and there is prima facie evidence against the applicant. It is also submitted that the case of the co-accused Bhausaheb stands on different footing than the applicant herein and his earlier applications were rejected as afore-stated and, therefore, the learned A.P.P. submitted that although investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the investigation papers and also 4 considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, it appears from the injury certificate dated 16.12.2009 that the complainant sustained contusion i.e. simple injury on his head and it is submitted that he was discharged from the hospital within one day. Moreover, as regards the alleged recovery of the amount of Rs.13,000/- from the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out from the Bank statement of his mother, which is produced at Exhibit B, that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn from her account which was in possession of the applicant herein, which came to be recovered on the same day i.e. 6.11.2009. Moreover, it is also apparent that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and, therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody. 6. Besides, the learned A.P.P. submitted that one C.R. No.153/2008 has been registered against the applicant at Kadim Jalna Police Station under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is pending before the Court. However, on the basis of the said submissions, it appears that the said C.R. is still pending and no conviction has been inflicted upon the applicant therein nor any other criminal antecedents have been 5 pointed out by the learned A.P.P. against the applicant. 7. Having the comprehensive view of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions upon him as mentioned hereinbelow. 8. In the result, the Criminal Application is allowed and the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, on the following terms and conditions: (i) The applicant shall give attendance before the Police Station, Kadim Jalna once in a month i.e. during first week of each month till the disposal of trial. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly or indirectly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri970.10