1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1558 of 2010 Ranjit Mangatram Bhatia ..VERSUS.. Central Bureau of Investigation, EOU-V, EO II, New Delhi Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R.M.Daga, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.B.Ahirkar, Special counsel for for the respondent. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 19 th Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. This is an application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail in CBI Case No. RCSIB 2009 E 0004 EOU-V, New Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 49 and 49-B punishable under SEction 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It is the case of the prosecution agency that the applicant Ranjit Bhatia was found in possession of one packet of Tiger bones. On receiving information, CBI officials had rushed to Nagpur Railway Station where the applicant Ranjit was about to travel towards New Delhi, he was apprehended by the officials and was found in possession of a packet of tiger bones. Mr. Daga, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is seeking his release on the ground of parity. He submitted that in Criminal Application No. 1378/2010 in case of one Tashi Ladoe .vs. CBI arising out of similar case No. RCSIB 2009 E 0004 EOU-V, New Delhi, this Court after considering the material allowed the application. The applicant Tashi Ladoe was found in 2 possession of otter skin. Mr. Ahirkar, learned Special Counsel for the respondent, has strongly opposed the application and submitted that the case of the applicant Tashi Ladoe differs from the case of the present applicant. An apprehension is also expressed that the applicant may be not be available for the investigating agency in case the trial proceeds. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. In view of the record submitted by the investigating agency, learned Advocate Mr. Ahirkar was unable to show any major difference in the set of circumstances as compared to the applicant Tashi Ladoe. It is not disputed that the case registered against Tashi Ladoe is the same case. It is also not in dispute that the applicant Tashi was found in possession otter skin. The apprehension expressed by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent can be taken care of by putting the applicant on conditions. Learned Special Counsel submitted that the applicant is resident of Hoshirpur (Punjab) and to secure his presence, he may be directed to attend the CBI office, New Delhi where the offence is registered. He also submitted that if the applicant is having Passport, the same may be directed to be deposited with the CBI office, New Delhi. In view of above and considering the material on record, I find that prima facie case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, on the following conditions. a] The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency 3 and attend the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., EOU-V, EO-II, New Delhi on every 2nd and 4th Sunday of the every month between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon, for a period of four months from today and thereafter as and when called by the police. b] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor commit any act such as contacting the prosecution witnesses or pressurize them. c] The applicant to submit his residential address and his contact numbers such as phone/mobile numbers to the investigating agency. d] If the applicant is having Passport, the same may be deposited with the CBI office, New Delhi and he shall not leave the country without the permission of this Court and without intimation of the investigating agency. In case of breach of these conditions, the prosecution agency to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law. JUDGE Diwale