1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.558 OF 2010 1. Shambhu S/o.Dilip Bhosale, Age-23 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Shivajinagar, Jalgaon 2. Jagdish S/o.Hari Bhoi, Age-22 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Khanderao Nagar, Pimprala, Jalgaon APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No. 329/2009, registered in Jillha Peth, Jalgaon, for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 307, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC in which they came to be arrested, and after investigation is over, charge sheet was filed on 24/02/2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned APP for State. 2 3. At this stage only it is to be made clear that the application was filed in this Court on 04/02/2010, and while pendancy of this application, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 24/02/2010. 4. Perusal of papers of investigation shows that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Rajesh Motiram Bhoi, the son of the injured Motiram about the alleged incident dated 25/11/2008 at around 10.45 p.m. in which the witness claimed to be the eye witness of the incident as when he alongwith his family members and father returning in the auto, they reached near Khanderao Nagar, where they found another Riksha parked. Complainant was travelling in the auto alongwith his father and mother. When question about blocking of the road, 3 persons whose names disclosed in the FIR and one unknown person alighted from the vehicle and after initial exchange of words, took out the weapons and stopped Motiram, Motiram was taken to the hospital and the complaint was lodged. In the supplementary statement, this complainant discloses that he is not a eye witness to the incident but when his father was proceeded to duty of motor-bike, the applicants and two others accosted him on his way and then assaulted and in that assault, these two applicants played major role of stabbing. In the supplementary statement, the person Rahul was exonerated. Apart from it, the statement of the injured was recorded which shows the names of the assailants as these applicants. The fact remains that the statements recorded during the investigation of the 3 complainant, injured and their family members are not corroborated with each other. The injured has sustained 5 injures due to which 4 injuries are styled as CLW, but out of those 4 injuries, against 2 injuries (the nature of the injuries are described as stab injuries) and the 5th injury is superficial injury. The injured was discharged from hospital on 05/12/2009 i.e. after about 10 days. In the premise, whether the injury sustained to be considered as attributed to the offence u/s. 307 or u/s. 306 of IPC is a matter of appreciation of evidence, but the fact remains that as the 2 other persons involved in the crime were already released on bail, the injured is discharged from hospital, the applicants are in custody for more than 90 days, as the investigation is over, the witnesses are the family members of the injured, hence there are no chances of tampering of that evidence. Hence the case is made out. In the premise, following is the order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Both the applicants be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing the PR bond in the like amount. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cri.appl.558-10