1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1366 /2010 (1) Bandu @ Vijay Ramchandra Gadpayle and another vs. 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 M Daga, Advocate for applicants Mr.J B Jaiswal, APP for Respondent CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 13 th September, 2010. Heard. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in connection with Crime No.59/2010 reported at Gondia City Police Station Gondia for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with section 149 of IPC read further with section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act; read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out that according to the first informant, who lodged his report on 2.3.2010 his friend Monu Shekhar Meshram telephoned him informing that his father is having a quarrel with some persons in the locality. The first informant thereafter immediately went towards Kacheri where he saw his father lying in an injured condition while by the same road he had also seen certain known persons, by name, Bandu Gadpayable. Manoj Wahane, Sanju and one Gopal carrying a sword. The authenticity of this report is questioned by the 2 learned Advocate on the basis of material collected during the investigation in the form of statement made to police by Monu Shekhar Meshram on 24.3.2010 when he appears to have stated that he had seen Radheshyam Suryawanshi lying on the ground in front of Shiv Lodge and he had informed his friend Vikky Suryawanshi that his father is lying down on the road and he should rush to the spot. This appears quite contrary to what has been claimed by first informant-Vicky Suryawanshi in material particulars as to the incident. Considering such statements in juxtaposition to each other, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out in respect of such serious accusation. 3. That being so, I am inclined to grant conditional bail. However, the prima facie observations made herein-above, shall not be considered as observations on merits of the case as it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution in the trial and appreciation thereof by the learned trial Judge. Suffice it to say that sufficient case is made out for grant of bail in favour of the applicants. Hence the following order: The applicants be released on bail in connection with Crime No.59/2010, upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each, with one or more surety in the equal amount, to be provided by each of them ; provided further that they shall attend the trial Court on each date of hearing; shall inform their fixed address with telephone/ mobile number,if any, to the I.O. 3 as well as the trial Court and shall not misuse their liberty in any manner. Application is disposed of. Humdast allowed. JUDGE Sahare