1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2747 OF 2009 Lalu @ Akbar Sikander Shaikh .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharshtra .. Respondent Mr.Rahul S. Kate for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th July 2009. P.C.: . This regular bail application has been assigned to this Court as the concerned Court (Coram:D.B.Bhosale,J) is unable to take up this application. The applicant is the 1st accused who is charged with the offences under section 302, 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The first information report was lodged by one Ramjan Badshah Shaikh. In the first information report he stated that he was residing alongwith his wife, younger son Salim, Salim s wife and two grand children. His son Salim was carrying on dairy business. It is stated that on 03rd January 2009 in the evening at about 7.00 p.m the said Salim proceeded by his motorcycle for delivering milk at 2 village Umrad. While leaving the house, he informed his wife that in the night he was intending to attend a party hosted by Israil Nizam Shaikh who is the co- accused. It is stated that as the said Salim did not return by next day morning, the first informant and other relatives started a search. Ultimately, dead body of his son Salim was found on road leading from Umej phata to Umrad road under a bridge. He stated that the motorcycle was also found there. In the pocket of the shirt of the deceased a bottle of country liquor was found and there were four wounds on his head. Initially, offence was registered against unknown person. On the next day supplementary statement of the first informant was recorded. In the supplementary statement he stated that the applicant (accused no.1) was his nephew who had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him. As the accused no.1 had not paid the amount, Salim had taken an undertaking from him on 27th April 2006 to pay the amount. As the applicant did not pay, Salim was after him. It is alleged that deceased Salim had illicit relationship with wife of co-accused Israil Shaikh. He stated that when the said Salim attempted to hold hand of wife of the said Israil, the said Israil got angry. It is alleged that under the pretext of hosting a party the applicant and co-accused Israil called his son Salim 3 and thereafter he was taken below the bridge near Hajarwadi phata and was assaulted by weapon and was killed. The applicant was arrested on 05th January 2009 alongwith the co-accused. The statement of the widow of Salim was also recorded in which she stated that her husband was having illicit relationship with the wife of the said Israil. She has stated that applicant had not repaid sum of Rs.50,000/- to the said Salim. She alleged that the accused have killed her husband. 3. It must be stated here that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail on 16th April 2009. He was enlarged on bail on noticing that chargesheet has been filed and except for disclosure statement made by the present applicant, there was no material against him. The application made by the applicant has been rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that there was recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the role ascribed to the applicant was different from the co-accused. 4. After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned A.P.P for the State, I find that a case is made out for enlarging the applicant on bail on 4 stringent conditions. The version of the first informant as well as the widow of the deceased is that the deceased while leaving his house had stated that he was proceeding to the residence of the co- accused as the said co-accused was hosting a party. As stated earlier, initially, the first informant had not named any of the accused. Moreover, a bottle of country liquor was found in the pocket of shirt of the deceased. The application for bail filed by the applicant has been rejected on the ground that there was recovery of iron rod at the instance of the applicant. It must be however noted that in the order passed by the Sessions Court while rejecting the application made by the applicant, it has been observed that injuries found on the person of the deceased do not correspond to the weapon allegedly recovered at the instance of the applicant. There are no eye-witnesses. There are no witnesses who have seen the deceased with the applicant. Moreover, there are no antecedents of the applicant and investigation has been completed. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The applicant shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent 5 sureties in the like amount. The bail is granted in connection with C.R.No.3 of 2009 of Karmala Police Station. (b) Bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant will report to Karmala Police Station between 10.00 a.m to 12 noon on 1st and 15th day of every calendar month till the disposal of the trial. (c) Bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant will not influence or threaten the prosecution witnesses and will co-operate with the trial Court for early disposal of the trial. (A.S.OKA,J)