abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2008 Anirudha @ Padmakar Raghunath Mirgunde .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi i/b Mr.K.S. Patil for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with a crime bearing C.R. No.796/2007 registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under sections 307, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on account of previous enmity arising out of the applicant wanting to marry the same girl which the injured (Nilesh) wanted - 2 - to marry, the applicant along with his 5 named employees and 3-4 unnamed persons assaulted Nilesh and attempted to commit his murder. The incident took place at about 10.00 a.m. on 29th November 2007. On the same day, FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim and the statement of the victim was also recorded on 22nd November 2007. Nilesh in his statement has stated that the applicant was present at the spot when he was assaulted. 4. The applicant has filed on record copies of nine affidavits sworn in by nine different persons stating that at the relevant time the applicant was present at a meeting at village Sonkire, District Sangli between 10.00 and 10.15 a.m. on 29th November 2007. The alleged incident has taken place at Pune, that is 250 km. away from Sonkire. Prima facie, the applicant could not be present at both the places 250 km. away from each other at around the same time. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the assault was made on account of previous enmity. In my view, the allegation of enmity is a double edged weapon. It could be a motive for assault as also to falsely implicate the applicant in the crime. 6. The investigation is almost complete, statements - 3 - of all the witnesses have been recorded and custodial interrogation of the applicant does not seem to be necessary. 7. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the vehicle used by the applicant for reaching the spot of the crime is yet to be recovered. Assuming that the recovery of the vehicle is necessary, that would not connect the applicant to the crime because the applicant is not disowning the ownership of the car. 8. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence and also the fact that the investigation is practically over, in my view, the presence of the applicant is not necessary for the purpose of custodial interrogation, but he can be directed to attend the police station for further questioning. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with the offence mentioned above, he shall be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties for the aggregate amount of Rs.50,000/- subject to the following conditions:- - 4 - (a) The applicant shall not make any inducement nor give any threats to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (b) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every alternate day between 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. initially for a period of one month and thereafter shall attend the said police station once a week till the filing of the charge sheet or for 3 months whichever is earlier. (c) This order shall come to an end after the charge sheet is filed whereupon the applicant may apply for regular bail before the regular court. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)