1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4467 OF 2009 Raju S/o.Parasram Chavan, Age-26 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Dattaburdi Tanda, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.J.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 20/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.43/2009, registered in Hadgaon Police Station, which came to be registered on 10/06/2009 wherein the present applicant came to be arrested on 11/06/2009. The said offence is registered for the offence alleged u/s. 302, 323, 504, 147, 149, 148 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act.) 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. It is not under 2 dispute that investigation in this crime is over and charge sheet is filed against the accused on 04/09/2009. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, as well as the statement made in the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses, who have witnessed the incident, it appears that during the attack on father of Sunil Prabhu Dhage by the mob, who were holding deadly weapons including the present applicant, and the said assault resulted in the death of father of complainant Sunil Dhage. Considering the injuries which were noticed on the person of the deceased, and the cause of death as shown in the post mortem notes, it is due to injury caused on the head connecting with internal injuries shown in Coloumn no.19 of the post mortem notes. Considering this aspect, two facts required to be considered whether merely because the presence of present applicant is marked at the spot by the complainant and other eye witnesses, and being a member of an unlawful assembly, whether any specific role attributed to this applicant which resulted in the death of deceased, for which answer to be given in the negative. Secondly, it is not under dispute that during the investigation, no incriminating articles were recovered at the instance of present accused. As according to the prosecution, stick which was hold by the applicant, was lying at the spot itself. 4. Considering the fact that there is dispute between two groups, there is some political touch and the fact that since more than 7 months, the applicant accused is in custody after the alleged incident 3 in which investigation is over and as there is no recovery of any incriminating articles at the hands of present applicant, the applicant is entitle to be enlarged on bail on certain conditions. O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to contact with the prosecution witnesses, and not to leave the local jurisdiction without previous permission in writing from the Investigation Officer concerned and the committal court. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.133-10