1 2.APPA1227-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1227 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.588 OF 2010 Kamlesh Satyaprakash Agarwal (Bansal). ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. .... Ms.Anjali Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the rival submissions at the bar. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant/appellant (original accused No.1) is hopeful of success in Criminal Appeal No.588 of 2010 for the following reasons : [i] Other co-accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge; [ii] There was delay in recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.; [iii] According to learned Counsel the prosecution witnesses namely PW-2 & PW-3 who were cross-examined with PPD 2 2.APPA1227-10 reference to their previous statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. admitted in respect of material omissions as to contents of their depositions before the trial Court; [iv] It is further submitted that the allegations were general in nature against all of the accused but only accused No. 1 was convicted and rest of the accused were acquitted. 3. Thus, according to learned Counsel for the applicant although the accusations were serious, however, there was no reliable and even acceptable legal evidence available to record conviction of the applicant in respect of serious offences punishable under Section 498- A read with Section 306 read with Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the applicant was only earning member of family serving in B.A.R.C. and his parents are dependent on him. 4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer of bail on the ground that the learned trial Judge has recorded the conviction in respect of serious offences. In the alternatively he submitted that if the bail is granted, stringent conditions may be imposed against the applicant. 5. I have heard submissions in the light of copies of depositions to which my attention is invited. It does appear prima facie that there were omissions which may be described as material in respect of 3 2.APPA1227-10 depositions of Pws-2 & 3 who admitted in the course of their cross- examination that those facts were not stated while police recorded their statements. 6. For all these reasons, the applicant may, in my opinion, be enlarged on conditional bail to ensure his presence at the time of hearing in the appeal and also during pendency of the appeal whenever required. Hence, the order :: O R D E R :: [i] The applicant - Kamlesh Satyaprakash Agarwal (Bansal) be released on bail upon executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rs.One Lakh Only) with two or more sureties in the equal amount. Provided further that he shall inform his fixed address with cell phone number, if any. [ii] Applicant shall also inform change in the address, if any, to the Station House Officer of the police station concerned. Applicant shall attend once in a period of one month during pendency of the trial at the nearest police station. Applicant shall attend the final hearing of appeal and he shall not commit crime while on bail. [iii] Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (A. P. BHANGALE, J.)