(1) Criminal Application No. 3511 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3511 of 2011 Jay Vijaysing Taur, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Indiranagar, Bhingar, .. Applicant Ahmednagar. (Original accused) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. G.R. Ingole, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ (2) Criminal Application No. 3511 of 2011 CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and also heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. I-253/2010, registered at Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 452, 363, 325, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, and also, under Sections 37(1)(3) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Mrs. Pushpa Pradeep @ Manju Patekar, on 21st August 2010. Admittedly, name of the applicant has not been reflected in the said complaint and the said complaint refers to the name of one Girish Sathe, Sunil Sathe and their associates. However, supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded on 25-8-2010 discloses the (3) Criminal Application No. 3511 of 2011 name of one Jaya Tanwar. 4. In the said context, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the name of the applicant, in fact, is Jay Vijaysing Taur, and he is not concerned with the alleged offences and still Police personnel are after him, and he has approached this court for pre-arrest bail. 5. Pertinently, supplementary statement of complainant, namely, Mrs. Pushpa Pradeep @ Manju Patekar, dated 1st October 2010, discloses name as Jaya Taur. However, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that his name is not Jaya Taur, but his name is Jay Vijaysing Taur. 6. Apart from the said discrepancy in the name, it is pointed out that the sword and wooden log were recovered at the instance of Girish Sathe from his house, under the discovery panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as well as, knife and Maruti Van were also recovered at the instance of Sunil Navgire under discovery panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 7. It is also pointed out that the co-accused, namely, Sushil Bhausaheb Salve @ Sable, and Sunil @ Sondya Satyavan (4) Criminal Application No. 3511 of 2011 Navgire, were already enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Court on 18th December 2010. Moreover, it is submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also considering the accusations made against the applicant, and more particularly, considering the discrepancy in the name, the custodial interrogation of the applicant, apparently, is not necessary for further progress in the investigation, and hence, present application deserves to be allowed, but on conditions. 9. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed, and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with Crime No. I-253/2010, registered at Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- [Rupees fifteen thousand] and one surety in the like amount, on the conditions, (i) applicant shall give attendance before the concerned investigator on every Thursday, Tuesday and Friday, between 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., till filing of the supplementary charge sheet, and cooperate in the investigation, and (ii) applicant shall not influence upon witnesses and / or tamper with the evidence, in any manner, whatsoever, directly or indirectly, and the present Criminal Application stands disposed of finally. (5) Criminal Application No. 3511 of 2011 10. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3511