1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5835 OF 2009 Harshawardhan Baliram Palande .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane for the applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Karan Bhosale i/b Mr. O.A. Siddiqui for the intervener. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Bhosale for the intervener. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks 2 bail in connection with C.R. No. I-100 of 2009 registered at Kolsewadi Police Station, District Thane. Initially, the offence was registered under section 326 and other sections of the I.P.C. and on death of the victim Devidas Gaikwad, the offence has been converted into section 302 of the I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case in short is that Devidas Gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who is a cable operator, was sitting in his office. His nephew Ashish Mehere and two others, viz. Dinesh Sawant and Amit Joshi, were sitting outside the office. On account of a dispute arising out of disconnection of a cable supplying TV feed to Navpanchak Society, some members of the society gathered together and assaulted the deceased. The deceased was injured and was removed to the hospital where he died on the next day. 3 4. Ashish Mehere lodged a F.I.R. and his statement was recorded on the same day. Statements of two other eye witnesses, viz. Dinesh Sawant and Amit Joshi, were also recorded on the 2nd and 3rd June 2009. Subsequently the statements of all the three other eye witnesses were recorded and the applicant has been arrested. 5. Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, pointed out that in the statement dated 1st June 2009 the complainant has named 7 assailants, but has omitted to mention the name of the applicant. Similarly, in the statement dated 2nd June 2009, Dinesh Sawant – another eye witness has also named a few persons, but has not named the present applicant. Amit Joshi - the third eye witness in his statement dated 3rd June 2009 has also not named the present applicant. Mr. Mundargi therefore submitted that there was no prima facie material to connect the applicant to 4 the crime and the applicant be granted bail. 6. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submitted that the name of the applicant has been recorded in the subsequent statements of the complainant as well as the eye witnesses. He submitted that the applicant is a Corporator in the locality and holds influence on the police and on account of the said influence though the complainant and two eye witnesses had named the applicant in their statements, the applicant’s name was not included in the statements by the police. Only after the complaint made by the father of the deceased to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and higher officials, the police recorded the supplementary statements of the complainant and eye witnesses in which the applicant has been named. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State denies the allegation that the applicant was named by the complainant at the first instance only but his name was wrongly 5 omitted from the F.I.R. by the police officer in charge of the police station. 7. Mr. Bhosale further stated that the applicant has killed the applicant on account of previous enmity as the deceased had contested the municipal election against the applicant. 8. If the applicant was a known public figure and was also known to the family of the deceased including the complainant, on account of enmity and/or on account of contesting election against the deceased, it is unlikely that the complainant and the eye witnesses, who were working in the office of the deceased, would not have known the applicant. Omission of the name of the applicant in the F.I.R. as well as initial statements of the eye witnesses raises a doubt about the involvement of the applicant in the crime. 10. The applicant is in jail since 6th 6 September 2009. Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. In the circumstances, the applicant can be released on bail by imposing strict conditions. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER The applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not threaten any of the prosecution witnesses and shall not even contact them. (ii) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station once a fortnight in the 1st and 3rd week of every British calendar month. (iii) Breach of any of the above conditions 7 would result into cancellation of bail forthwith. It is clarified that all observations made above are only prima facie and the learned Sessions Judge shall not take them into consideration at the time of the trial. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)