ABA-456-11==.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.456 OF 2011 Rajendra Ashok Jasud ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Shirur Police Station, Dist. Pune ... Respondent Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate, a/w. Mr. Dilip Shukla, i/b. SBG & Associates, for the Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent. Mr. Shashi P. for the First Informant. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 20 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Some of the co-accused in this case have just now been released on bail by me being Applicant Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 in Bail Application No.671 of 2011. 3. So far as the present Applicant is concerned, admittedly, he was not present at the scene of the offence. The case of the Investigating Agency is that one of the accused Pravin, who was present on the spot and who has allegedly used the fire arms during the incident, said to be victims and witnesses that ABA-456-11==.sxw 2 Dixit he and other had been sent by "Rajendra" (i.e. the present Applicant) to finish those persons. 4. Mr. Mundargi submitted that the co-accused, to whom the statement is attributed, was himself not found to be present at the scene of the offence. According to Mr. Mundargi the incident took place at Petrol Pump and in the C.C. T.V. Cameras that were installed there, the presence of the co-accused Pravin, on the basis of whose statement the present Applicant is being implicated, is not seen at all. The learned APP submitted that the C.C.T.V. Cameras might have not captured the entire spot or place of incident and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said Pravin was not present at that place. 5. Without going deeper into this aspect, what needs to be observed is that, admittedly, the Applicant is being implicated on the basis of the statement made by a co-accused. Though in the course of investigation, some record from the telephone company has been obtained showing telephone contacts between this Applicant and the other accused at the relevant time, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the Applicant was granted protection by passing an interim order for anticipatory bail in his favour on 26th May, 2011. The Applicant was directed to attend the Police Station everyday till 9th June, 2011. Admittedly, the Applicant has attended the Police Station, as directed, and has been interrogated. It is also not in dispute that the Applicant has not committed the breach of any of the conditions imposed upon him by the interim order. It also appears that the injured and victims and the accused in this case have arrived at some understanding and the victims have not opposed the Bail Applications of co-accused. ABA-456-11==.sxw 3 Dixit 6. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and since the Charge Sheet has already been filed, I see no point in refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant, who has already been protected by an interim order. 7. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. 8. In the event of his arrest in C.R. No.57 of 2011 of Shirur Police Station, Pune, the Applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in like amount, on the condition that he shall report to the Shirur Police Station on every Sunday, till the disposal of the case against him. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]