1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1524 of 2010 Sushilkumar Sarjuprasad Shukla ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Gittikhadan, Nagpur Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. J.B.Jaiswal, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 19 th Octo ber , 2010 . Heard. This is an application filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 240/2010 registered at Police Station, Gittikhadan, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Mr. Mardikar, learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that only because of the alleged previous enmity, the applicant is roped in the present crime. He invited my attention to the report dated 28/8/2010 and submitted that bare perusal of the report would show that there is neither mention of presence of the applicant nor any role is attributed to him and only suspicion is expressed that the applicant has hatched conspiracy along with other assailants. The reply is filed by the State and opposed the application. Learned APP submitted that the offences registered against the applicant are serious in nature. There are criminal antecedents at the credit of the applicant. A statement is made in the reply that this not the first time where the name of the applicant is mentioned for 2 hatching the conspiracy. When it was asked to show the material about earlier involvement or antecedent at the credit of the applicant, learned APP was unable to show any such material. There is also no material to show that the applicant was present either on the spot of incident along with other assailants or was seen soon after the incident. Learned APP further submitted that the brothers of the applicant are absconding and as such it will cause hindrance in investigation. Learned APP has also expressed apprehension that in the event of release of applicant on bail, the applicant may tamper with the prosecution evidence and pressurize the witnesses. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. Mr. Mardikar, learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the statement made by learned APP is not factually correct. He further submitted that the brothers of the applicant/co- accused are already arrested and they are in jail. Learned Advocate has submitted that in case the bail is granted to the applicant by putting some conditions, the applicant is ready to abide by those conditions and cooperate with the investigating agency. In view of the submissions made by both the sides and the material placed before the Court, I am of the opinion that there is no material so as to necessitate availability of the applicant for custodial interrogation at the hands of investigating agency. The apprehension expressed by learned APP can be taken care of by putting the applicant on conditions. In the result, the application is allowed. The ad-interim protection granted to the applicant by this Court by order dated 24/9/2010 is confirmed on the same conditions with added condition that the applicant to attend the Police Station, Gittikhadan on every Sunday between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon. In case of flouting of any conditions or investigating agency 3 finds that applicant is involved in the activity of pressurizing the witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence, the investigating agency is at liberty to take necessary steps as required under the law. Criminal Application is disposed in above terms. JUDGE Diwale