1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2008 Arun Raghunath Bhalkar .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.K.S. Patil for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 25th February 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks bail in connection with an offence punishable u/s.302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered under C.R.No.131 of 2007 at Alibag police station. 3. The applicant and the co-accused Digamber 2 Sawant had previously filed a joint application for bail before the Sessions Court. By an order dated 3rd November 2007 that application has been rejected. The applicant as well as the co-accused approached this court for bail by two separate applications. The application of the co-accused has been allowed who has been granted bail by this court. The prosecution case is that the applicant and the co-accused Digambar R. Sawant assaulted Satish More (the deceased) with iron rod and wooden log on 11th July 2007 and killed him. The First Information Report was lodged by Rajesh, the brother of the deceased, who on information received on telephone went to the spot and carried the deceased to the hospital. According to him when the deceased was being carried out to the hospital, he narrated to him that he was assaulted by the applicant and Digamber Sawant on account of the dispute over the commission in a land deal. 5. The Sessions Judge rejected the application for bail principally on three grounds:- i) The names of the applicant were narrated to Rajesh by the deceased, while he was carried to the hospital in a autorickshaw. 3 ii) Blood stained clothes were recovered from the body of the applicant. iii) Wooden log used for the crime was recovered at the instance of Digamber R. Sawant, the co-accused. 6. As regards the contention that the deceased had mentioned the names of the applicant and Digamber Sawant while he was being carried to the hospital, it may be noted that Rajesh, First Informant in the FIR did not state in the FIR names of the assailants nor did he state that the deceased had told the names of assailants to him. On the other hand in the FIR, he has stated that the deceased was unconscious and was carried by him to the hospital while he was unconscious. In his statement the auto-rickshaw driver has not stated that any such information was given by the deceased to his brother. 7. The Chemical Analyser’s report,a copy of which was handed over by the Advocate for the applicant, shows blood stains on the clothes of the co-accused and Digamber Sawant but specifically states that no blood was detected on the clothes of the applicant. 4 8. The wooden log was not discovered at the instance of the applicant but at the instance of the co-accused - Mr.Digamber Sawant. 9. No other evidence connecting the applicant directly to the crime was pointed out to him by the learned APP. In the circumstances, applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R . The applicant is released on bail on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not change his present residence without prior intimation to the police. ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once a month between 1st and 5th day of the British Calendar month till the conclusion of the trial. iii) The applicant shall attend the Sessions Court on every date fixed for the case. 5 iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threats to any of the prosecution witnesses. . It is clarified that all observations made in this order are prima facie and Sessions Court shall not in any way be influenced by any of these observations at the trial. (D.G. KARNIK, J)