- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 474 OF 2008 Mahendra S. Sood Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Abad H.H. Ponda, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the respondent. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 18, 2008. PC 1. The applicant who has been arrested on 8th of January 2008 in connection with C.R. No. 5 of 2008 registered with Oshivara police station for the alleged offence punishable under section 326 397 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, seeks bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Prosecution case is that on 5-1-2008 Bapu Narayan Romane (complainant) lodged the first information report at Oshivara Police station alleging that he was assaulted by three unknown persons. One of the persons assaulted - 2 - him with a weapon like a chopper injuring him. At the time of assault they stated that assault was made because the complainant had made complaint against Sidhir Pothere who is a builder. On the basis of said complaint, applicant was arrested. Learned APP submits that bail should not be granted as applicant has been identified by an eye witness in the identification parade. 3. Complainant has not named the applicant in the FIR. However, he gave supplementary statement three days after the incident that one of the assailants was the applicant. The complainant know the applicant before hand and yet he has not mentioned his name in the FIR Supplementary statement of the complainant appears to be an after thought. The fact that applicant did not mention the name of the complainant in the first information report raises a doubt in the prosecution case and the possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out altogether. 4. As regards the alleged eye witness, his statement was recorded on 20th of January 2008 i.e. after fifteen days of incident. It is not clear how the police came to know that he was an eye witness after fifteen days and if the police knew him as eye witness, then delay of fifteen days in recording his statement is not explained. This - 3 - circumstances also raises serious doubt about complacity of the applicant in the crime. According to the prosecution, attack was at the instance of Sudhir Pothere who had engaged the applicant and others for the assault. Sudhir Pothere has been granted bail by the Session Court on 15th of January 2008. 5. Taking all these facts into consideration, in my view the applicant is entitled to bail. Accordingly I order that applicant be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, subject to condition that applicant shall report to the concerned police station once a month between 1st and 5th day of British calender month and shall not change place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned police station. Sd/- [ D. G. KARNIK, J.]