1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.845 OF 2010 Ajay S/o Devdan Sabale ..Applicant (ori.accused no.3) V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.734 OF 2010 Sandeep Bhanudas Nakade ..Applicant (ori.accused no.2) V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ..... Mr.Sanjay Mundhe, Advocate for applicant(ori.accused no.3). Mr.R.K. Temkar, Advocate for applicant (ori.accused no.2) Mr.P.P. More, APP for respondent. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 22nd March, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. These are 2 two applications preferred by the applicants i.e. original accused nos.3 and 2 respectively for grant of bail in connection with C.R. No.I-15/2010 registered with Shevgaon Police station, Dist.Ahmednagar on 28.01.2010 for the offence punishable under sections 307, 353, 363, 369, 269 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, since they are arrested thereunder on 28th January, 2010 and presently, they are in judicial custody. Since, both the applications pertain to the same C.R., they are being decided by the present common order. 2. It appears that the complaint came to be registered on the basis of the report lodged by Nitin Dhondiram Bansode alleging that on 28th January, 2010 when the complainant and Tahsildar, Nitin Patil with his staff members were on duty and were searching for illegal subsidiary mines transport, the present applicants-accused were found with one tipper vehicle No.MH-16-AE-2794 proceeding towards Bodhegaon-Shevgaon road and near petrol pump, the complainant and his other staff members asked to stop the vehicle and asked for permit to carry away the sand. However, it 3 is alleged that the accused and others did not stop their tipper and the tipper was chased and was stopped. At that time, again documents were asked, but the tipper gave dash to the vehicle of Tahsildar and kidnapped the complainant and took him to Ambedkar Chowk and thus accused allegedly committed serious offence. 3. On the aforesaid background, the learned Counsel Mr.Mundhe appearing for applicant in criminal application no.845/2010 submitted that no overact is attributed to applicant in the F.I.R. and there are no specific allegations against him. It is further urged that the applicant is 19 years young boy and is college student and he has no concern with the said offence. According to the learned Counsel, the applicant only took the lift at the relevant time and he was traveling as passenger in the said vehicle, and therefore, he has not committed any offence as alleged. It is further urged that, the date of examination of applicant is fixed on 26th March, 2010 and if, he is not released on bail, his career would be ruined. 4 4. The learned Counsel Mr.R.K. Temkar for the applicant in criminal application no.734/2010 has adopted arguments advanced by the learned Counsel Mr.Sanjay Mundhe excepting the argument that the applicant is student and would appear for the examination on 26th March, 2010. The learned Counsel for the said applicant (accused no.2) submitted that the vehicle which is seized has already been released and therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in the custody further more and he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present applications and submitted that infact the applicant (accused no.3) Ajay Sabale is cleaner and the applicant (accused no.2) namely; Sandeep Bhanudas Nakade is labourer and they are very well involved in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that driver of the said tipper namely; Ashok Garad has been arrested and he is still under judicial custody. It is further submitted that investigation has been almost completed but same is in progress. 5 6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is apparent that investigation has been almost completed and therefore, there is no necessity in keeping the applicants in the custody further more and therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail, but while releasing on bail, certain conditions are required to be imposed upon them as mentioned herein below. 7. In the result, present application nos. 845/2010 and 734/2010 are allowed and it is directed that the applicant-Ajay Sabale (accused no.3) and applicant Sandeep Nakade (accused no.2) be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) each and on executing the P.R. bond in the like amount by each of them on the following terms and conditions : a) Both the applicants shall give attendance before the concerned Police Station as and when required and shall co-operate in the investigation, till filing of the charge sheet. 6 b) Both the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not influence prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. 7. Both the Criminal Application nos.845/2010 and 734/2010 stand disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri845.10