1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4497 OF 2009 1. Shivaji Vishwanath Pawar, Age-27 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Kingaon, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur 2. Vishnu Namdeo Kotwal, Age-21 years, Occu-Education, R/o.Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 3. Pralhad Dadarao Kadam, Age-19 years, Occu-Education, R/o.Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 4. Raju Kerba Rajpanje, Age-30 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Kalegaon, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. APPLICANTS VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji with Mr.J.R.Patil, learned counsel for applicant.s Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 06/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached 2 this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No. 127/2009, registered in Hatta Police Station, Tq.Wasmat, for an offence punishable u/s. 395, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s. 3/25 of The Arms Act. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. From the submissions across the bar, it appears that the said offence came to be registered on the basis of complaint lodged by one Khanderao about the alleged incident took place in the afternoon of 21/11/2009 wherein it is alleged that the complainant has approached one Shri.Boochake, as he intend to purchase the land of Shri.Boochke and on the faithful day, there was intention between both of them to enter into an agreement of sale and for that purpose, earnest money to be paid by the said complainant to the said Shri.Boochke. This meeting was arranged in the field of said Shri.Boochke. As per the arrangement when the complainant approached said Shri.Boochke in his field alongwith the cash, cheque book, the incident took place in that field as alleged in the complaint, as the complainant informed the said Shri.Boochke that he has arranged for the consideration of earnest money and came with the cash. It was suggested that first they will take tea and then the documentation will be completed. When the said Shri.Boochke gave call to bring the tea, some 10-15 persons came armed with sticks, 3 rods in their hand, and one person by name More snatched the bag containing cash from the hands of said Boochke and ran away. At that time, as the call was given, police came there and they apprehended the said More, and Boochke. These persons were arrested on the same day, but nothing was recovered from them neither they were produced in the identification parade for their identification by the complainant as there is statement in the complaint that if the persons who attacked on the complainant, if produced before him, he is in a position to identify them. 4. It is urged across the bar that since the date of arrest, these applicants are in custody for more than 46 days. They are arrested merely on suspicion. They are not identified by the complainant as the members of unlawful assembly, who attacked the complainant and snatched or participated in the incident of snatching the bag containing cash from the hands of complainant. Nothing is recover from them. 5. While opposing the application, it is urged by the learned APP that investigation is still in progress. In the premise, if these applicants be released on bail, there is likelihood that they will tamper the witnesses of prosecution. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar and particularly these applicants were arrested immediately on the same day, after the alleged incident, at the same time, there is statement in the 4 complaint that the complainant was attacked by some unknown persons to whom he will identify if shown. Since then for more than 46 days, these applicants who were arrested in connection with this offence were not confronted with the complainant about their participation in connection with the said offence, itself goes to show that even though the material investigation is over, for some otherwise purpose, these applicants were not confronted with complainant. The case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail as now their custody is not required but by putting certain conditions on them. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. The applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, the applicants not to contact with the prosecution witnesses. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.4497-09