IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4068 OF 2008 Dattu Khandu Amrale ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Vishranti Navale for Applicant Shri Rajesh More, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 11TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 302 and the other related offences of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Firstly, the prosecution case is that one Tagade was assaulted with the sickle and knife by the Accused and by his three companions. The name of the present Applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and it is alleged that he was one of the three companions, who had assaulted the deceased. The Complainant did not identify the present Applicant in the test identification parade, which was held by the Investigating Officer. The other two companions of the main accused, who are not named, have been released on bail by the Sessions Court on the ground that they were also not identified by the Complainant and the other witnesses. The application of the Applicant, however, was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that he was not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of party because, the C.A. Report has been placed by the prosecution before the Sessions Court , which indicated that the blood which was found on the clothes of the Applicant had blood stains and the blood stains were said to be the blood of the deceased. Therefore, on this ground the bail was not granted to the Applicant. 4. It is submitted that the said observation is incorrect and, in fact, the C.A. Report does not indicate that the blood found on the clothes of the Applicant belonged to the blood group of the deceased. 5. The learned APP has fairly considered this fact after going through the record. That being the position, the observations of the Sessions Court is factually incorrect and even otherwise, that would be the only material available with the prosecution so far as the present Applicant is concerned. Since the Applicant has not been identified by the Complainant, the said evidence by itself is not sufficient to convict the Applicant. The Applicant, therefore, deserves to be released on bail. 6. The Applicant be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicant shall report to the concerned police station once in a month. The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. 7. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court while considering the application for bail, as these observations are essentially of a prima facie nature. The Trial Court, therefore, shall decide the case on merits and in accordance with law. 8. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.