- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 745 OF 2008 (1) Bhau Baba Kare; (2) Sampat Bhau Kare Applicants vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent --- Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. D. P. Adsule, APP for the respondent. --- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 24, 2008. PC 1. Heard. 2. By this application, applicants seek bail in connection with C. R. No. 90 of 2007, registered with Natepute Police Station, Solapur for the alleged offence punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 302,. 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3, The prosecution case in short is that applicant - 2 - No.2 who is son of applicant No.1, had killed Manik Bhau Kare by the complainant party. Complainant party members were tried and five of them were convicted and sentenced under section 304 (Part-II) of Indian Penal Code. Accused as well as State have filed counter appeals, which are pending in this Court. On account of this enimity, on 16th November 2007 the applicants assaulted and killed Ramchandra Sadhu Kare. The applicants were arrested on 19th November 2007 and 25th November 2007 respectively and are in custody since then. 4. Dilip Mahadev Kare is said to be an eye witness. He was accompanying the deceased at about 8.00 p.m. on 16th November 2007. He saw eight persons chasing and trying to catch them. He escaped but the applicants caught the deceased. On 17th November 2007 dead body of deceased was found at 8 a.m. Dilip who is alleged to be an eye witness did not lodge the First Information Report on 16th November 2007 when he and deceased were chased. He did not lodge F.I.R. even after the dead body of the deceased was found on 17th November 2007 at about 8 a.m. The delay in filing FIR is not satisfactorily explained. Besides, the name of applicant No.2 was not mentioned by the alleged eye witness in his first statement. The possibility of complainant falsely implicating the applicants on account of previous enmity, cannot be ruled - 3 - out, altogether. 5. Taking into consideraton all these facts in my view, the applicants are entitled to bail. Hence, I pass following order. _O_R_D_E_R_ . Applicants be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount for each of the applicant, subject to the following conditions- (i) Applicants shall not make any inducements of threats to any of the prosecution witnesses. (ii) Applicants shall report to the concerned police staton once a month between 1st and 5th day of British calender month till conclusion of the trial. . It is clarified that all observations made herein are prima-facie and the trial court shall not be influenced by the same, in any maner, at the time of trial. [ D. G. KARNIK, J.]