1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 362 OF 2010 Yellappa Pundappa Ahiwale .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharahtra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for the applicant. Mr. S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No.272 of 2008 registered at Dehu Road Police Station, District Pune, for an alleged offence punishable under section 302 read 34 I.P.C. and sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2 3. According to the prosecution, the deceased and his cousin brother (the complainant) were travelling in an INNOVA car on 27th August 2008. They stopped near Kivde Bridge for going to Hotel Savera. At that time, four persons came in a ESTEEM car and out of enmity with one of them, viz. Rahim Shaikh, they assaulted the deceased. There were in all four persons, two of them were carrying revolvers and the two others were carrying swords. A F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant immediately. 4. From the statement of the complainant, who is an eye witness, it appears that he knew all the four assailants as he has given full names of three of them and the first name of the fourth person. The applicant is not one of the four persons named by the complainant. The complainant has stated in the F.I.R. that there were only four persons, al of whom were named by him. No doubt, Sameer Taras, who is 3 another eye witness, has named the present applicant in his statement, but there is contradiction between the statements of the two eye witnesses. While the complainant admittedly was travelling with the deceased in an INNOVA car, another eye witness Sameer Taras appears to be a chance witness. 5. The applicant has been arrested on 28th August 2008 and is in custody for more than 18 months. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. Taking into consideration the present backlog of cases, the trial is not likely to commence in near future. 6. The case of the applicant is certainly different than the four other persons who have been specifically named in the F.I.R. by the complainant. In the circumstances, the applicant can be granted bail. Hence, I pass the following order: 4 ORDER The applicant be released on bail on his executing a P.R. bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not threaten any of the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall report his presence to the concerned police station once a fortnight, i.e. in the 1st and 3rd week of every British calendar month. (ii) The applicant shall, within 48 hours of his release, inform in writing to the concerned police station his present residential address, residential telephone number and mobile number and shall inform any change in the residential address, telephone number or the mobile number within 48 hours of the change. 5 (iii) Any breach of the conditions shall result in cancellation of the bail. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)