IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 328/2008 [Satish Bhaiyalal Mirajamale vs. State of Mah. ] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 15 th FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard Shri Anil Mardikar, Advocate, along with Shri P.C.Madkholkar, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Thakare, A.P.P. for respondent State. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Accused/applicant amongst others is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 138, 149, 302, 307 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. r/w Section 135 of Bombay Police Act arising out of Crime No. 118/07 of Police Station City Kotwali, Akola. The report was lodged by the brother of the deceased. The names of the accused namely Harish Mirajamale, Bipin Mirajamale, Umesh Mirajamale, Satish Mirajamal and Rajesh Mirajamale appear in the said report. In the said F.I.R., there were allegations levelled against the present applicant saying that with iron pipe, he and others had assaulted the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant filed zerox copies of the same Crime Number as per Puris dated 7.2.2008. It was pointed out that on the very first page of the said F.I.R. No. 0169926 on 11.8.2007 there were some additions and alterations. It is really surprising, rather mysterious as to how these two xerox copies of the first page of the same crime was differing to considerable extent. Needless to stay that when affidavit of the I.O. was called, it is not filed, though the learned A.P.P. has assured that it would be filed in near future. What is shocking is the supplementary statement of the present complainant which is recorded on 12.8.2007, which does not implicate the present applicant to the required extent, as it was in his report. The supplementary statement categorical mentions the names of Satish and Umesh who had come on motor cycle. It, however, further mentioned that Harish Mirjamale, Bipin Mirjamale, Rajesh Mirjamale and Nana Chavhan had attached deceased Balya by iron pipe. The name of the present applicant Satish is missing as assailant in the said statement. Learned A.P.P. has tried to contend that the role of this applicant is similar to that of Nana and therefore, he should not be released on bail. However, from the supplementary statement of the complainant, it does not appear so. It is not disputed that the other accused except Nana have been released on bail by the Sessions Judge. It is also apparent that the State has not challenged that order, though they were allegedly the real assailants. In these circumstances, as the supplementary statement of the complainant who is none less than the brother of the deceased make the case of the applicant distinguishable from that of Nana, and because the other accused who are alleged to be assailants have been released on bail and their bail has not been challenged, this applicant cannot be denied bail. However, it would be subject to conditions. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Judge, subject to condition that he shall attend the trial regularly and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not commit any offence. The above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and shall not influence the trial Judge in any way while deciding the matter on merits. Bail in lower Court. Hamdast granted. JUDGE Rvjalit