1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 981 of 2010 Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.M. Daga, Adv for applicant Mr K.S. Dhote, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 7.7.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that name of the applicant is not at all mentioned in the FIR, but he has been arrested on the ground that his name finds place in the FIR. He further submits that co-accused Niyaz Mohammad, Shaikh Dadu and Mohammad Amin are released on bail by this Court while accused Mohd Amir is released on bail by the Sessions Court. Learned counsel contends that applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on parity. 2. Learned APP while opposing the application, contended that the applicant was initially absconding and he surrendered on 11.1.2010. Two accused persons namely Wasim Mansoori and Mohd Samir are still absconding. He also expressed apprehension that applicant may try to tamper with prosecution evidence. 3. My attention has been invited to the order dated 9th March 2010 passed on criminal application no. 33 of 10 filed by the 2 present applicant. Bail was refused to the applicant on the statement of learned APP that further investigation was goingon and if necessary, supplementary charge-sheet will be filed. It was revealed that as against present applicant, investigation was not over and, therefore, bail was refused to the present applicant although co- accused were released on bail. However, liberty was granted to the applicant to apply for regular bail after investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. was over. It was directed that further investigation as against the present applicant shall be completed within a period of one month, if it was intended. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out to me that even though more than one month’s period is over, further investigation has not been completed and supplementary chage-sheet has not been filed. 4. Applicant cannot be allowed to be in custody for indefinite period, particularly when the co-accused have been released on bail and allegation against the applicant is more or less same. Hence, I am inclined to grant conditional bail to the applicant. 5. Applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 88/09 registered with Nagpuri Gate Police Station, Amravati for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 506-B r/w Section 149 IPC; Sections 4 and 5 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act upon his executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall not try to tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner. He will not communicate with any of the prosecution witnesses. He shall leave his permanent address along with telephone/cell phone number (if any) with the Investigating Officer and the court concerned and shall communicate change therein, if any, in future. Application stands 3 disposed of accordingly. Hamdast granted. Judge. joshi