- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 696 OF 2008 Aziz SAdruddin Lokhandwala Applicant vs. The state of maharashtra Respondent Mr. Amin Solkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondent. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 11, 2008. PC 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 18th february 2008 in connection with crime no. 28/2008 with V. P. Road police station for the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. 3. Complainant is the landlord and the applicant is the tenant. On account of construction of a wall in the rented premises or the premises adjoining thereto, the complainant has lodged complaint regarding alleged construction of the wall and also lodged the complaint - 2 - regarding non cognizable offence against the applicant. According to the prosecution, while the complainant was returning on a motor-cycle after lodging NC complaint against the applicant, the applicant came from behind in his car and gave dash to the motor-cycle of the applicant. After the complainant fell down, the applicant took Maruti car in the reverse direction, and attempted to run over him with an intent to kill him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The statements of the complainant was taken in the hospital and he was treated as an outdoor patient and was immediately discharged thereafter. The pillion rider was also taken to the hospital and was discharged on the next day. Now, there is no possibility of offence being escalated to an offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. as both the complainant and the pillion rider have been discharged from the hospital and are moving around. 5. The applicant is in jail for a period of more than 24 days. Investigation is practically over. Statement recording is also completed. Statement of the pillion rider, who is alleged to be eye witness has also been recorded. 6. The applicant is a tenant of the complainant and - 3 - has permanent address. There is no possibility of his jumping from in the event he is released on bail. Taking into consideration the existence of a dispute between the parties, and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out altogether. In my view the applicant can be granted conditional bail at this stage. Hence, I pass following order. _O_R_D_E_R_ (i) The applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, subject to following conditions. (ii) The applicant shall not make inducement of threats to the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall report the concerned police station once in a month between 1st and 5th day of British Calender month till conclusion of the trial. Sd/- [ D. G. KARNIK, J.]