{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2010 Tukaram s/o Ranuji Lohkare Age-69 years, Occ-Agri R/o Holkar Nagar, Ambad Dist-Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State Mr.S.S.Topel, Advocate for original complainant. ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 25th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.159/2009 registered with Ambad police station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 325, 447, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In this offence charge sheet has been filed on 05.12.2009 and the applicant is arrested on 07.12.2009 and since then he is in jail. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP, who is assisted by learned counsel for the original complainant. 3. It appears that the offence came to be registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the wife of deceased Arun, who had sustained serious injuries during the assault in the morning of 05.09.2009. He was admitted in the hospital, however he expired on 22.11.2009. After the death of said Arun, supplementary statements of the complainant and four witnesses are recorded. Name of the applicant is disclosed in the supplementary statement and on the basis of the same, the applicant came to be arrested on 07.12.2009. 4. Bail is prayed by the applicant mainly on three grounds viz, firstly, there is delay in disclosing his name i.e. his name is disclosed after about 2 months that too on the allegations that he has assaulted the complainant and not the deceased; secondly, so far as statement of eye witnesses are concerned, it is disclosed that they learnt about the role played by the applicant form the complainant and hence it is urged that it cannot be said that there is direct evidence against the applicant; and lastly, it is urged that considering the age of the applicant, i.e. 69 years, he be released on bail. It is contended that even the delayed disclosure is to be accepted, the allegations against the applicant is that he was present and no role is attributed to him in respect {3} death of the deceased Arun and hence it is urged to release him on bail. 5. Learned APP, while opposing the bail application, has contended that the applicant is a history sheeter and was involved in serious offences prior to the present offence. It is urged that the applicant being a member of unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapon and participated in the assault, may not be released on bail as there are chances of tampering of evidence. 6. Considering the rival submissions, it is clear that though the delayed disclosure is to be accepted, the act alleged against the applicant does not attribute any assault to the deceased Arun. In the premise, at least at this stage, it cannot be inferred that the applicant is responsible for the death of Arun. So far as the act alleged against him in respect of assault on the complainant is concerned, why the complainant has kept quiet for about 2 months is not explained and hence the same creates doubt. The role played by the applicant can be ascertained during the trial. In respect of criminal antecedents, it require to be considered as to whether they relate to the family of the complaint or not and the same can be taken care of at the time of trial. In the premise considering the age of the applicant and the delayed disclosure of the alleged role played by him, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail, however by imposing certain conditions. {4} 7. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicant not to contact with the prosecution witnesses. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln20-10 {5} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2010 Shobhabai w/o Arun Lohkare APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.S.Tope, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for State Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 25th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to respondents. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Chatterjee accepts on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed to allow her to assist the APP to oppose criminal application No.20/2010. Learned counsel for respondents have no objection to allow this application. In the premise, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” and stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln20-10