IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 248 of 2010 Manoj v. State of Maharashtra ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr R.B. Gaikwad, Adv for applicant Mr A.S. Fulzele, APP and Mr A.N. Narnaware, Adv with him to assist the prosecution Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 5th March 2010 1. By this application, applicant prays for grant of bail on the ground that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. According to learned Advocate for applicant, name of present applicant was not mentioned in FIR nor any specific role was attributed to him. No weapon has been seized from him so as to show his connectivity in the alleged crime. 2, Learned APP contends that clothes of the applicant have been seized. He further submits that name of the applicant does not figure in the FIR, because at the relevant time, first- informant was not knowing their names. He prayed for rejection of bail application. 3. I find that there is no C.A. Report. Adsmittedly, no test identification parade was conducted during the course of investigation. According to reply from respondent, complainant himself is an eye witness, but he was not knowing the name of assailant who, after assault, ran away. Learned APP wants to make reference to statement of one Bandu which was recorded on 24.8.2009 who alleged to have stated that two persons were repeatedly stabbing Manoj Kushwaha and those assailants had run away. Witness Bandu Bhujade did not know those assailants. Under these circumstances, considering the material collected by the prosecution, prima facie, it is seen that chances of conviction of the applicant are remote and applicant may get benefit of doubt. Of course, this observation is prima facie in nature and trial Court shall not be influenced by the same. Be that as it may, this is a fit case where applicant deserves to be released on bail on certain conditions. 4. Applicant be released on his executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two or more sureties in the like amount provided further that he shall attend trial on each date of hearing. Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall leave his fixed address along with telephone/ cell phone number (if any) with the Investigating Officer as also the Court concerned and shall communicate change therein, if any, in future. Application stands disposed of. Judge. Hsj