1 BA 427.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 427 OF 2011 Mannu @ Naga Vadhumal Sharma. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. R.D. Suryavanshi for the Applicant Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the state. CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 7th JUNE 2011. P.C. :- Heard Mr. R.D. Suryavanshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mrs. Mulekar, APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been arrested on 11.9.2010 on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Apart from the Applicant, there are three other accused in this case and one of the said three is absconding. 3. The contention of Mr. Suryavanshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant is that there is no material to show that the Applicant has committed the alleged offence, inasmuch as the Applicant is not the person who fired at the victim 2 BA 427.11.sxw Dharmendra @ Kalu. The case of the prosecution is that the said Dharmendra @ Kalu was fired at by one Mirchoo, and the Applicant and other accused have been implicated in the said case on the theory that the firing done by the said Mirchoo, was in furtherance of the common intention of the Applicant and other accused. 4. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the Applicant, I have gone through the charge-sheet. In the First Information Report that was lodged on 10.9.2010, the victim did not implicate the Applicant in any manner. This indicates that at that time he did not suspect the Applicant and did not suspect that the firing was in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. It is only in the supplementary statement of the first informant, recorded on 14.10.2010, that he implicated the Applicant. The basis for implication is that the Applicant, though was present at the time of assault, did not attempt to prevent the assault, and that, he kept quiet. Even as per the version in the supplementary statement, the Applicant did not run away with the said Mirchoo and the absconding accused after the assault, but, instead, took the victim to the hospital. 5. The way the incident appears to have occurred, as reflected from the statements recorded during investigation, it requires serious consideration as to whether the firing done by Mirchoo at the victim, was in furtherance of the common intention of the said Mirchoo and other accused. 3 BA 427.11.sxw 6. The learned APP submitted that the Applicant has a past criminal record and that he has been involved in as many as 18 cases. The details of the cases registered against the Applicant have been mentioned in the communication addressed by the Inspector of Police, Hill Line Police Station, Thane, to the learned APP. Said communication is taken on record. It appears that about 10 cognizable cases have been registered against the Applicant in the past. It is however pointed out by the learned Advocate for the Applicant that after the year 2001 no case of a cognizable offence has been registered against the Applicant. This appears to be correct. 7. In any case, considering the nature of material on the basis of which the Applicant is involved in the alleged offence; and also considering that he has been in custody since last more than 9 months without any progress in the trial, I am inclined to release him on bail. 8. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one surety in like amount on the condition to report to Hill Line Police Station, Thane every Sunday till the disposal of the case against him. (A.M. THIPSAY,J.)