1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3793 OF 2009 Govind Ashok Shahane ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Ms.Pranali Kakade for the Applicant. Mr.J.P. Yagnik for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2 This is a second application for bail. His earlier application was rejected by this Court by order dated 28th January, 2009. Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to para 2 of the said order in which it has been mentioned that the applicant assaulted the deceased with a sickle. In 2 the said order, it is also mentioned that two sickles were recovered at the instance of accused no.1 i.e. Bunty Pawar. 3 Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the statement of Mahesh Suresh Kamathe. It is submitted that the said witness has nowhere stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased with a sickle. She submitted that there is only reference in the said statement that the applicant had taken the sickle from the hand of the co-accused Mangesh Khare and had proceeded towards the place where deceased Monu was lying in an injured condition. She submitted that therefore, eye witness does not state that the applicant had assaulted the deceased with the sickle. She submitted that apart from this witness, there is no other evidence on record to implicate the applicant in the said case. 4 Learned APP also fairly submitted that the said statement of the eye witness which is recorded 3 by the police only mentions that the applicant had proceeded with the sickle to the place where the deceased was lying in an injured condition. 5 Counsel for the applicant also submitted that the trial has not yet begun and the charge also not framed and the trial is not likely to be over in the near future. It is submitted that under these circumstances, the applicant who is a young boy of 19 years of age deserves to be released on bail. 6 I have perused the statement of the eye- witness. The submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff appears to be correct. In the said statement, the eye-witness does not state that he had seen the applicant assaulting the deceased with the sickle. The observation made in the earlier order appears to be incorrect. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is in jail since last one and half year and since the trial is not likely to be over in the 4 near future, secondly, the applicant is of 19 years of age and has no prior antecedents, the applicant, therefore, deserves to be released on bail subject to certain conditions being imposed on the applicant. 7 The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall report to the concerned police station twice in a month. He shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. 8 The application is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)