1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1457 OF 2010 (Hemraj Ramchandra Lilhare .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.M. Bhagde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 01ST OCTOBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking bail. Learned APP has filed the reply. I have perused the reply and the record made available to me. The application is opposed by the learned APP on two grounds, namely, (i) that there is statement of one Vijay Lilhare (co-accused); and (ii) the seizure of ornaments at the instance of the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant invites my attention to the order dated 09.02.2010. The said order was passed in the application moved by the co-accused Vijay Lilhare. While considering the said application of the co-accused, it was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as under :- “On going through the charge sheet, except the allegation that accused Nos.2 and 3 in collusion with accused No.1 has committed murder of the deceased. There is no direct evidence showing their involvement. Learned APP has relied upon the memorandum given by accused No.1 in which he has involved both these applicants/accused. According to him, there is circumstantial evidence against accused Nos.2 and 3. Thus on going through entire charge sheet, I find that there is no direct evidence showing that accused Nos.2 and 3 have played role in committing murder of the deceased. As the investigation in the 2 matter is over and charge sheet is filed, in my opinion, this is a fit case in which both the accused may be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order.” Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that on the ground of parity, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as the case of the applicant/accused Vijay Lilhare is similar to the case of the present applicant. In respect of second ground about the seizure of the ornaments at the instance of the applicant, learned Counsel invites my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.L. Satish .v. State of Karnataka (reported in 2001(3) Crimes 182 (SC)) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash Bablu Parashram Rahangadale and another .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 2005 All MR (Cri) 941). It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that merely finding of ornaments would not be sufficient ground to rope the applicant for the commission of murder. It is not in dispute that the investigation is complete. The charge sheet is filed. It is also not in dispute that the applicant is behind the bars for the period of one year and as the charge sheet is filed, there is no need of the application for further investigation. In my opinion, the case is made out for grant of bail. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount. The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required. JUDGE *rrg.