1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3583 of 2008 (Sudarshan s/o Satyadev Ramteke and others v. The State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri S.P. Gadling, Advocate for Applicants. Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for Non-Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 7th January, 2009 This is an application by four persons for being admitted to bail. They have been arrested for their involvement in offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 18 and 39(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 12 of the Press and Registration Act read with Sections 420, 465, 468, 124(A), 120(B) and 34 of the Penal Code. They were arrested in January 2008, i.e. almost a year ago now. Notice was issued to the State, which has filed elaborate replies opposing release of these persons on bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned APP for the State, who is assisted by the Investigating Officer and who has made available for my perusal material allegedly seized from the applicants on the basis of which the applicants are sought to be detained in 2 prison till their trial is over. As far as applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the material produced is innocuous. Therefore, their bail cannot at all be opposed, since there are no other allegations against them except possibly that applicant No.4 sought admission to a College on a false certificate. As far as applicant No.1 is concerned, some of the material, which has been seized by the Investigating Agency would be available anywhere and would not justify the detention of applicant No.1 pending his trial. However, there are some pamphlets, which are in multiple numbers and which may indicate that the same were sought to be circulated with the help of applicant No.1. Therefore, this may justify prima facie conclusions drawn by the authorities to proceed further against applicant No.1, though these aspects would have been eventually examined at length at the trial. In view of this, the application, insofar as it relates to applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4, is allowed. They be released on each of them furnishing a PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.50,000/- on the condition that they shall keep themselves away from all criminal activities till the trial is over. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall attend Police Station Ramnagar and applicant No.4 shall attend Police Station Wani once a week for one month and thereafter once a month till the trial is over. 3 The application of applicant No.1 is rejected. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE pdl