MP 1 BA1106_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1106 OF 2011 Raju @ Tiklee Popat Mohite ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms Dimple Bhargava i/b. Ms Revati Mohite Dere, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt.P.P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 P. C. : The applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime No.89 of 2008 registered with Dattawadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. Section 149 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of Bombay Police Act and Arms Act. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.07.2009 at the instance of Laxman Jagdole and Ram Jagdole, other accused persons assaulted Ganesh Kamble with sickles or koytas which are sharp and cutting weapons. As soon as Mahesh, who is brother of Ganesh Kamble, came there and shouted, the assailants ran away. Thereafter, police was called and Ganesh was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The offence was registered against nine persons. In the F.I.R. lodged by Mahesh, who claims to be the eyewitness, names of (i) Amol Kale who is also known as Chini, (ii) another Amol Kale who is known as Aamba, (iii) Shankar Bhalerao (iv) Bhimya Jadhav and (v) Mukund @ Babadya Gaikwad are shown. The name of the applicant Raju @ Tiklee Popat Mohite is not shown in the F.I.R. as one of the assailants. However, his name was disclosed by other two eyewitnesses Bharat and Deepak. The first informant also gave his name in the supplementary MP 2 BA1106_11 statement recorded on the next date. According to the prosecution, blood stained koyta or sickle was seized on the basis of the information given by the present applicant. The CA report reveals that though human blood was found on the weapon, results were inconclusive about the blood group. The learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, informs that five of the accused persons have been granted bail. In view of the fact that name of the present applicant was not shown in the F.I.R. which was lodged immediately by the person who claims to be the eyewitness of the incident, in my opinion, it will not be desirable to refuse bail to him. 3. Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and he shall also attend Dattawadi Police Station, Pune on every Monday between 4.00 to 6.00 p.m. till end of the trial. (J. H. BHATIA, J)