( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3069 OF 2010 1. Balasaheb s/o Sitaram Sapte 2. Kishor s/o Rambhau Tattu 3. Ashok s/o Ganpat Sapte 4. Sachin s/o Anil Daule 5. Rahul s/o Laxman Bandhiwan 6. Sandip s/o Shridhar Markali 7. Arun s/o Sopan Borkar 8. Bhushan s/o Gangadhar Shinde All r/o Newasa (Bk.), Taluka Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Taluka Police Station, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENT .... Smt. S.S. Jadhav, advocate holding for Mr. D.G. Nagode, advocate for the applicants. Smt. S.D. Shelke, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 24th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicants are seeking ( 2 ) bail. They have been arrested in connection with crime No. I58/2010 for various offences, punishable under section 452, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P. Code and subsequently, the charge for offence punishable under section 395 of the I.P. Code and section 3 read with section 25 of the Indian Arms Act was also added. 2. The prosecution case is that in all, four (4) motor- cycles reached the road-side dhaba (hotel) in the evening of 10th July, 2010. On the motorcycles, eight (8) unknown persons had come and had demanded liquor. The complainant told them that liquor was not being sold in the hotel. The motorcyclists picked up the quarrel and thereafter, started abusing the complainant and beat him. They also assaulted the hotel Manager by name Ramchandra Aware and the waiter of the hotel. They damaged chairs and left the place on the motorcycle. They had left the place towards Newasa. After filing of such report with the police, subsequently, supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded in which he made certain improvements or additions which showed that one of the motorcyclists had pointed a pistol at Manager and another motorcyclist had removed Rs. 15,000/- from the cash counter of the hotel and also the Tata Sumo Jeep vehicle ( 3 ) standing outside the hotel was damaged. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP and on consideration of the material gathered during course of the investigation, the following inferences can be drawn. (a) The elaborate FIR lodged by the complainant was subsequently appended with the supplementary statement which prima facie purports to show improvements in order to aggravate the nature of offence; (b) The learned APP Smt. Shelke states that the investigation papers do not show holding of identification parade and, therefore, identity of the applicants as the same persons who had gone to the dhaba of the complainant on the motorcycles is not explicit; (c) The complaint and the supplementary statement of the complainant do not show registration numbers of the motorcyclists in order to implicate the present applicants on basis of the record of registration of the vehicles; ( 4 ) (d) The FIR purports to show that the culprits had not concealed their faces and were having sticks with them. In such circumstances, when the complainant was not knowing the culprits before evening of the alleged incident, holding of identification parade was necessary. But there is no explanation coming forth as to why the same was not held; and (e) Learned A.P.P. submits that certain sticks were recovered from the applicants. However, there is no identification marks nor identity of the sticks as the weapons used in the alleged commission of the offence can be inferred because there was no blood stain nor any allegation is made in the FIR that any one was injured seriously during course of the incident. 4. Having regard to the circumstances and the inferences indicated above, the applicants are entitled to seek liberty. Mere seriousness of crime cannot be the ground to trample liberty of the applicants. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, each alongwith solvent surety bond for each of them. The bail bonds ( 5 ) shall be furnished before the concerned Court of Sessions. The application is accordingly disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3069-10