( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.531 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.531 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.531 OF 2008 Mohd. Lalu Mohd. Shajahan Shaikh .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.S.S.Khan for the applicant. Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocates appearing on both the sides. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in C.R.No.I-349 of 2007 in regard to the FIR which was lodged on 22.10.2007 for charge under Section 302 and other related offences. The FIR came to be filed on 22.10.2007 by Aziz Kureshi and statements of witnesses came to be recorded thereafter on 22.10.2007 and 23.10.2007. It is peculiar to note that in the statements, the present applicant is not referred to; whereas at a later point of time i.e. on 25.10.2007, ( 2 ) the witness, who had kept silent about the alleged involvement of the applicant have come forward to mention the involvement of the present applicant as a perpetrator of the crime atleast to the extent of instigating the other persons, who had indulged in the assault. It is peculiar to note that the present petitioner came to be arrested on 25.10.2007 and the FIR complainant rendered his further statement involving the present petitioner by rendering a statement on 26.10.2007. This will go to show that the name of the present applicant was inserted in the statements of various persons with a specific purpose and rendering of those statements become suspicious. One more thing is also required to be mentioned by way of observation that all these persons, who rendered statements on 22/23.10.2007 about the crime, forgot to mention the name of the present petitioner. This is something which is peculiar in its way and it is difficult to accept that all the persons forgot to mention the name of the petitioner. All these things go to show that the petitioner has made out a case for bail as his alleged involvement in the crime itself becomes doubtful. Hence, the order. a) The petitioner is granted bail in C.R.No.I-349 of 2007 of Nalasopara Police Station. ( 3 ) b) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Petitioner to execute P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. c) Petitioner to report to the concerned Police Station on every 2nd Saturday between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till 30.9.2008. 3. Application stands disposed off accordingly in the above terms. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)