1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4422 OF 2009 Rahul Ramchandra Taru. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate i/by Avinash Kamkhedkar and Vinod Shete for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 15h April, 2010 PC : 1 This is an application for grant of regular bail. The applicant is shown as an accused in C.R.No.562/2006 registered by Kothrud Police Station, Pune for alleged offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,149,302 and 307 of the I.P.C. read with 3(25) of the Arms Act. Initially Section 3 of the MCOC Act was invoked against the present applicant but subsequently on an application made by the present applicant, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of the MCOC Act. 2 The deceased is one Sandeep Mohol and admittedly he had enmity with the accused No.1 Sachin Pote. It is the case of the prosecution that out of the various accused some of whom are named in the F.I.R. had entered into an conspiracy to kill the deceased Sandeep Mohol. The actual killing was done by breaking open the glass of his vehicle and thereafter, accused No.1 Sachin Pote has alleged to have fired his revolver. No other weapon is said to have been used. One Ramesh Bhosale who was travelling along with the deceased Sandeep Mohol was also injured. The Complainant is one Prakash Dagdu Karpe . He has not named the present applicant. Two constables were also present at the time of the incident. They have also not named the applicant. The identification parade was also held. In the identification parade also the witnesses could not identify the present applicant. There is discovery at the behest of the applicant. The evidence against the present applicant is the statement of the co accused. That statement of the 3 co accused is not substantive piece of evidence. There has to be other corroborative evidence and in case court could find it sufficient then such a confessionary statement of a co accused can be brought into as evidence against the applicant. It is also noted that in the order passed by the Special Judge while disposing off the Exh.90, it has been wrongly mentioned that the statement of witnesses recorded by the police disclosed that the present applicant was member of the conspiracy along with the other accused and that the neighbouring witnesses identified the present applicant. The A.P.P. agrees that these findings of the Sessions Court are not in accordance with the record. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. It is therefore, directed that pending his trial in pursuance of CR. No.562/2006 registered by Kothrud Police Station, Pune, the applicant will be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he will report to the 4 Investigating Officer once in a week on every Monday between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the disposal of the trial and on further condition that he will not tamper the witnesses and will remain present on all the dates of the trial in the trial court. Application is disposed off. 2 Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this court. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)