BA-864-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.864 OF 2011 Anil Shantaram Patgaonkar ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur ... Respondent Mr. Amol Patankar for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 7 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Since a Charge-Sheet has now been filed in the matter, the copy thereof is tendered by Mr. Patankar, the learned Advocate for the Applicant. A copy thereof is furnished to Mrs. Newton, the learned APP for the Respondent, also. 3. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent, I have glanced through the Charge-Sheet. Though the matter was kept back till 3:00 p.m. for the presence of the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer is absent. I am, however, not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the Bail Application merely because the Investigating Officer is absent. BA-864-11.sxw 2 Dixit 4. Undoubtedly, the Applicant has been named as one of the assailants in the F.I.R. lodged by one Swapnil Tahsildar. However, it is contended by Mr. Patankar, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, that this Applicant is not alleged to have given blows on the vital part of the body of the victim. He pointed out that the blows alleged to have been given by the Applicant to the victim were on the hand and other parts of body. He pointed out that the victim has sustained three injuries on head and two injuries on the hand. There is substance in his contention that, prima facie, the injuries on head are not attributed to the blows given by the present Applicant. 5. While this aspect may not be significant, it is also pointed out that in the supplementary statement of the First Informant, he has mentioned that the name of the present Applicant was mentioned as one of the assailants, by mistake. In reply to this contention, the learned APP has pointed out that the First Informant - Swapnil Tahsildar - has filed an affidavit subsequent to the date of recording of his supplementary statement, in which he again implicated the present Applicant as one of the assailants. 6. Under these circumstances, I have gone through the statement of the injured - Amit Rane. He makes a mention only of the co-accused - Amit Shinde - as one of the assailants and describes the other assailants as unknown. It does not appear that, in the course of investigation, any steps were taken to establish the identity of the present Applicant as one of those, who are described as unknown persons by the victim - Amit Rane. 7. Without going further deep into the matter, it may be observed that the co- accused - Mulla - has been released on bail by the Court of Sessions. The case of BA-864-11.sxw 3 Dixit the present Applicant cannot be said to be different from that of the co-accused for the purposes of bail. 8. The Applicant is in custody since 25th March, 2011. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail, subject to certain conditions, as have been agreed upon in the course of hearing of the Bail Application. 9. The Bail Application is allowed. 10. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, on the condition that the Applicant shall not enter the area within the jurisdiction of Shahupuri Police Station, Dist. Kolhapur, till the disposal of the case against him. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]