1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3642 OF 2009 Yuvraj Maruti Shirsat ........ Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. M.K. Kocharekar adv. for the Applicant Mrs. P.P. Shinde APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 18th September,2009. P. C.: 1. This is an application moved under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail by the present applicant who has been arrested on 6-10-2008 in C.R. No. I-155/08 for offence punishable under sections 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC and sec. 256(1)(A) of Arms Act and 37(1), 135 of B.P.Act. According to the prosecution in the night in betweeen 6-10-2008 and 7-10-2008 the offence has been committed. FIR is lodged by father of the deceased wherein it is stated that the relations of the deceased with one Janardhan Parshuram Mhatre were enimical on account of an earlier incident of assault and consequent filing of a case by Janardhan Mhatre against the deceased. It is stated that in the evening of 5-10-2008 the deceased had left the residence on moor cycle to visit a Pendol 2 where statue of Goddess was installed. The deceased left the said place for coming back at about 11.30. Sometime by mid night a boy came running and informed the first informant that the deceased Umesh was lying along with the motor cycle in a lane near the house. The first informant in the company of his tenant Raju Chavan rushed to the spot and found that the deceased was lying unconscious. His vehicle was also lying there. He was lifted and thereafter brought near the square and then taken to hospital where he expired. The first informant expressed suspicion against Janardhan Mhatre and other members of Mhatre family. There are no eye witness to the incident. The learned APP submits that the involvement of the applicant is seen from the statement of one Dinesh Madvi and one Sunita. 2. Perusal of the statement of Dinesh Madvi reveals that after midnight on 6-10-2008 he received a mobile call from Haresh the co-accused. When Dinesh answered the call, Haresh the co- accused enquired from him as to where he was. The witness informed Haresh that he was at his residence at which point of time Haresh informed Dinesh that they have committed murder of a boy in Dombivli and requested the witness to permit him (Haresh) to reside at his residence. The witness refused the said request. Haresh then disconnected the mobile. Yet again by about 3.00 a.m. Haresh telephoned Dinesh and informed that as his shirt was blood stained he demanded a shirt from Dinesh. When Dinesh came on the road he met Haresh along with three other persons while they were walking. Dinesh gave his shirt to Haresh. The 3 witness Haresh and his friends thereafter went to a place Reti Bundar. Haresh and his three friends slept there. In the morning Haresh received a call from his residence and he was immediately called at his place. Hence Haresh asked Dinesh to drop them to a near by place and accordingly Dinesh dropped the four of them to a place known as kolse kinare. Thus in the statement of Dinesh he has referred to the confession made by Haresh. Dinesh also claims to have seen the three persons who has accompanied Haresh. Obviously the three persons were not known to Dinesh. Hence he could not name them. It is not in dispute that no test identification parade was held with a view to ascertain who were the three persons who had accompanied the co-accused Haresh. 3. The learned APP fairly states that barring the statement of Dinesh and a similar statement of Sunita Bhoir there is no other material or circumstance available against the present applicant, which can connect the applicant with the crime. Nothing has been recovered from the present applicant. In the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, this is a case of no evidence and the applicant has been falsely implicated. Having regard to the fact that the present applicant has not been named in he FIR or by any other witness and more so in the absence of test identification parade, it is difficult to even prima facie hold that there is some material against the applicant to connect him with the crime. Investigation is completed, charge sheet has been filed. However trial would take quite sometime. The applicant is in custody for about 11 months. 4 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the clear view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In the result the application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall attend the police station once a fortnight till conclusion of the trial. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)