IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4461 OF 2006. Sanjay Deoram Dolas. .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Shri Nitin Sejpal and Miss Pooja Bhojne for the applicant. Shri Y.M.Nakhwa for the respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21.12.2006. DATED: 21.12.2006. DATED: 21.12.2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The applicant was arrested on 27th July 2006 in connection with C.R.No.I-228 of 2002 under sections 302, 449, 147 to 149 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident alleged is of October 2002. It is not disputed that co-accused were arrested and tried by the Sessions Court and their trial was separated from the present applicant. Upon full-fledged trial, co-accused have been acquitted whereas applicant is facing trial because his case is separated. 2. The case of the prosecution is that during the course of trial of the co-accused the present applicant was absconding and did not appear before the Court. He was later on arrested and that is how trial of his case is separated and presently going on. 3. The applicant states that he has been in custody from 27th July 2006. His case has been separated but yet to be committed to the Court of Sessions. Apprehension that the applicant would abscond is taken care of by giving an undertaking in this Court. The undertaking states that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would attend the day fixed by the trial Court and the appellate Court. The applicant is permanently residing at Rajguru Nagar, Rahul Chowk, Taluka Khed, District Pune. Upon release, the applicant would attend Rajguru Nagar Police Station every day. He would abide by such terms and conditions as would be imposed by this Court. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State, however, pointed out that the applicant was absconding and was arrested after nearly 4 years. In such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in coming to conclusion which he has reached. 5. Having perused the application with annexures thereto so also undertaking given by the applicant, I am of the view that interest of justice would be subserved if applicant is enlarged on bail on certain conditions. Hence the following order. (i). Applicant be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount. (ii). The bail order will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the investigating officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change is residential address thereafter till the conclusion of the trial without prior permission to the investigating officer. (iii). The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution case. (iv). The Applicant shall cooperate with the learned trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the case. Any attempt by the applicant to delay the trial may be a ground for cancellation of bail. (v). Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on merits of the case at the time of trial. 6. Application is disposed of in the above terms. 7. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)