1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5765 OF 2009 1. Bhimrao Ramchandra Patil 2. Balu Pandurang Patil 3. Dinkar Shankar Todkar .. Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jayant Bardeskar for the applicants. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicants seek bail in connection with C.R. No. 40 of 2009 registered at Shirala Police Station, District Sangli, for an alleged offence punishable under 2 sections 302, 120-B, 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and sections 3, 25, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. 3. On 26th August 2000, Chandar Balu Mahind was killed near the border of Shirshi Khind. At the relevant time, the deceased was travelling on a motor cycle along with his nephew Vasant Shripad Mahind. Motor cycle was stopped on the way by accused nos.1 and 2. Thereafter gun shots were fired at the deceased by the accused no.1. The motive for the killing was that the deceased had helped one Satya Chavan in assassination of the nephew of the accused no.1. Vasant Shripad Mahind, who is an eye witness, lodged the F.I.R. The accused nos.1, 2 and 3 were arrested and are in custody. 4. During the course of investigation, the accused nos.1, 2 and 3 disclosed the names of the present applicants as the conspirators. The 3 present applicants have therefore been arrested and arrayed as accused nos.4, 5 and 6. 5. So far as the applicant no.1 is concerned, the only evidence against him is that of motive, viz. his son was killed previously by the deceased. There is no other evidence against the applicant no.1. So far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, there is a statement of the owner of the gun from whom the gun used in the crime was alleged to have been borrowed by him. Admittedly, the applicant no.2 did not use the gun but he is alleged to have further lent the gun to the accused no.1. So far as the applicant no.3 is concerned, there is no evidence against him except the statement of the accused no.3. 6. The applicants are in custody since August 2009. Considering the present pendency of matters in the trial court, the trial is not likely to commence any time soon. 4 7. Taking all these facts into consideration as also the nature of evidence available against the applicants, in my view, the applicants can be granted conditional bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER The applicants be released on bail on each of them executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicants shall not threaten any of the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The applicants shall report their attendance to Shirala Police Station twice a month, i.e. in 1st and 3rd week of every British calendar month. (iii) Breach of any of the conditions would 5 result in cancellation of bail. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)