1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1145 /2010 ((1) Nitin Bhagwant Kharode and others vs. State of Maharashtra) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. V S Bapat, Adv.for applicant Mr. C N Adgokar, APP for Respondent CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 25 th August, 2010. Heard learned counsel for appearing respective parties. 2. By means of the present application, the applicants prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 6/2010 for offence punishable under sections 436, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code reported at Rahimpur Police Station, Dist. Amravati. 3. This application was filed on 22nd July 2010; but no reply has been filed by the Respondent-State, so far. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur granted bail in favour of the co-accused in Misc.Criminal Appln. No.164/2010 and co-accused Mohan Murlidhar Zod, Sau.Rupali Mohan Zod were granted bail. However, the plea for bail by the present applicants was rejected on the alleged ground of extra judicial confession. According to Mr Bapat, learned counsel for the applicants, the FIR was stone-silent regarding any extra judicial confession 2 made by any of the accused. However, it was introduced in the course of investigation alleging that one of the applicants-Mr Bhagwant implicated all the applicants saying “..................” imputing that they have set ablaze the house as a result of which Sonali and Santosh were burnt alive and died. Although accusations are serious in nature, the nature of material sought to be relied upon may not be considered strong evidence enough to deny the benefit of bail to the applicants. There does not appear to be any material indicating direct evidence against the applicants. Under these circumstances, more so when co-accused have been granted benefit of conditional bail, there is no reason whatsoever why these applicants should not be granted benefit of conditional bail. Hence the following order:- The applicants be released on bail in respect of Crime No. 6/2010, upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-each, with two or more sureties in the equal amount; provided further that applicants shall attend the trial on each date of hearing. They shall inform their permanent address with Mobile/landline number, if any, to the Trial Court. They shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not misuse their liberty. Application is disposed of. JUDGE Sahare