1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2010 [Chandrakant @ Bablu s/o Modku Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr R M Daga Adv. for applicant Mr Dhote, APP for respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2010. Heard. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 75/208 reported at Goregaon Police Station Gondia for offence punishable under section 302, 120-B, 201 read with section 34 IPC. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that although accusations are serious, there is no material collected in the course of investigation to indicate prima facie involvement of the present applicant. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. The applicant is in incarceration since last more than one year. The trial has yet to commence. Furthermore, co-accused Gajanan and one Chitrakumar were granted benefit of bail by the trial Court. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is an agriculturist by profession having permanent residence at Latori Tq. Salekasar, Dist. Gondia and has responsibility to maintain his family; as also to look after his immovable property, 2 which is enumerated in paragraph 16 of the application. Moreover, the applicant has expressed his readiness and willingness to abide by the conditions of bail, such as, not entering the limits of village where the witnesses are residing. 3. The learned APP vociferously objected grant of bail on the ground that the accusations are serious and further that trial Court had rejected the bail application filed by this applicant. It is also submitted that it was a case of alleged contract killing. 4. It is not disputed that the co-accused Gajanan Mohade, a Sarpanch who allegedly had indulged into offence of contract killing by parting with specific amount, has been granted benefit of bail by the Court below along with one more co-accused. Under these circumstances in the absence of material which can be of direct nature to involve the present applicant and also considering that the applicant has furnished fixed address and expressed readiness and wilingness to observe conditions of bail, I am inclined to grant conditional bail, particularly in view of the ruling in Rajesh Shah @ Damcha vs. State of Maharashtra : 2006 All Mh.L.R. (Cri) 1952 cited by learned Advocate for the applicant regarding grant of bail, on the principle that co-accused were released on bail who were the main perpetrators of the crime as alleged in that case and despite some other cases pending against the applicant/accused, it appears that this Court had granted 3 benefit of bail, of course, with certain stringent conditions. Hence conditional benefit of bail is granted in favour of the applicant as follows : The applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 75/208 reported at Goregaon Police Station Gondia for offence punishable under section 302, 120-B, 201 read with section 34 IPC, upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the equal amount; provided further that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing in the trial Court. The applicant shall inform his fixed address with Phone /Cell Nos., if any, to the I.O. concerned and the Presiding Officer of the Court as well. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner. The applicant shall not commit any crime while on bail. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE sahare