1 Appln 2324-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2324 OF 2010 Manoj Kamla Singh ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3970 OF 2010 Surendra Aloo Singh alias Randha ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mrs.Racheeta Dhuru, for the Applicant in both the Applications Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent  State in Cri.Appln.No.2324/2010 Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP, for the Respondent  State in Cri.Appln.No.3970/2010 Mr.V.V.Gangurde, Advocate, for the original Complainant CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. . These two applications for bail are filed by accused who have been charge sheeted after completion of investigation in Crime 2 Appln 2324-10 No.I-32 of 2009 registered at Nalasopara Police Station, District Thane on account of murder of one Pravin Dhule. The allegation against the applicant Manoj Singh in Criminal Application No.2324 of 2010 is that Manoj Singh was actually a participant in the murderous assault which took place on 29th January, 2009. The name of Manoj Singh surfaced only on 7th February, 2009 in the statement of Lalchand Jayswal. It is not that Lalchand Jayswal did not know Manoj Singh. Lalchand Jayswal stated that he realized on 7th February, 2009 that in addition to six persons, he had already named in his statement, on 29th January, 2009, J.P.Singh, Zuri and Manoj Singh were present, as also Vaikunth Pande & Rajendra Prasad, at the time of incident. Now, there are two possibilities. First, the witness did not know Manoj Singh and did not name him. In that case the miscreant ought to be put to Test Identification Parade. Second, is that 3 Appln 2324-10 though the witness knew him, but did not name him in which case, the possibility of improvement cannot be ruled out. It is not that in the first statement, witness had stated that some persons known or unknown had assaulted Pravin Dhule. He had given not one but six names. In view of this, exclusion of name of Manoj Singh in the first statement would have to be examined by the trial Judge at the trial. 2. A motor cycle is seized at the instance of the applicant - Manoj Singh, which does not have any marks to connect the seizure to the crime. 3. In view of this, Manoj Singh's being in custody during the trial may not be necessary, since the evidence which is collected against Manoj Singh is unlikely to be altered by his being on bail. 4 Appln 2324-10 4. As far as Surendra Singh alias Randha, the applicant in Criminal Application No.3970 of 2010 is concerned, the allegation is only of conspiracy. It is alleged that the deceased Pravin Dhule was assaulted by Randha because Randha felt that Pravin was behind attack on his office about two to three months before the incident. One Ajit Jadhav , Rickshaw driver stated that on the on the incidental date he had carried some passengers in the Rickshaw. The passengers asked Rickshaw driver to stop, incidentally near the office of Dara Singh, brother of applicant- Randha. When he was waiting for the passengers to return, Sikander Shaikh, Dara Singh & Randha along with other 10 to 12 came out. Sikander held the hand of Dara Singh and stated that he would not leave the person on that day. No person is named. Randha is merely present at that time. Sikander had not held hand of applicant and had not specifically stated that he would finish 5 Appln 2324-10 Pravin Dhule. Ajit is supposed to have conveyed this incident to Ishwar Dhule at the house of Datta Dhule on the very next day. In his statement dated 2nd February, 2001, Datta stated that on enquiries he gathered that conspiracy was hatched between the applicants and others to finish Pravin Dhule. He does not refer information received from Ajit Jadhav. Ishwar Dhule made a statement on 9th February, 2009 and in that statement he stated that on 30th January, 2009 Ajit Jadhav had conveyed the information to him. It is not clear us as to what prevented Ishwar Dhule to immediately go to the Police Station and convey the information received on 30th January, 2009. In any case, since investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, considering nature of evidence which is collected against the applicant Surendra Singh, his being in custody is not necessary. Incidently, the learned Counsel for the applicants pointed out that two co- 6 Appln 2324-10 accused have been admitted to bail by this Court by order dated 16th April, 2009 in Criminal Application No.1564 of 2009. 5. Considering the nature of allegations made and the fact that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, both the applicants in both the applications be released on bail on their furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount of Rs.50,000/- per person on the condition that they shall attend Nalasopara Police Station, District Thane on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. till the trial is over. 6. Both the Criminal Applications are disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)