1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2918 OF 2008 Bhagwan Bapu Shinde .. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Jagtap Shekhar for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dediya A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: . Heard Jagtap, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Dediya, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.146 of 2007 of Talegaon Dabhade police station. The said crime has been registered mainly under sections 302 read with 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is on the allegation that the applicant alongwith two others allegedly assaulted the deceased with sickle on 15.9.2008 at 8.45 p.m. in Hotel - Sawli situated at Village Sudubre, Tal.Mawal, Dist. Pune. According to the prosecution there was earlier incident of quarrel between the deceased and two other accused, namely, Tarachand Gade and Gotya @ Vishal Gade and on account of that quarrel the alleged incident of assault took place on 14.9.2008 at 8.45 p.m. The applicant was admittedly not present when that incident of quarrel 2 2 2 occurred. 3. Mr.Jagtap, learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the statement of two eye witnesses, namely, Balasaheb Parandwal and Gorakh Khandu Midhe and submitted that insofar as the role attributed to the applicant is concerned both these witnesses are inconsistent. He submitted that according to Balasaheb, the present applicant was armed with sickle and he assaulted the deceased alongwith the two others and inflicted 15 incised wounds, while Gorakh has specifically stated that the present applicant was armed with hockey stick and he assaulted the deceased with the said stick. He then invited my attention to the post mortem notes and submitted that none of the injuries inflicted on person of the deceased could be attributed to the applicant and/or stated to be inflicted with hockey stick. Having confronted with this the learned A.P.P. could not point out as to which injury out of the 15 incised wounds sufferred by the deceased could be attributed to the applicant. Both the eye witnesses have stated as to how the incident occurred and it appears that they both ran away from the scene of offence subsequently. Keeping the inconsistency in the statement of the eye witnesses and medical evidence in view I find substance in the submission of 3 3 3 Mr.Jagtap though I do not wish to express any positive opinion at this stage of the proceedings. One eye witness states that the applicant was armed with hockey stick while other states sickle. Medical evidence does not support the allegation of the assault with hockey stick. In the circumstances I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence I pass the following order: . The applicant be relased on bail in the sum of Rs.35,000/- with two sureties to make up the said amount subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall not enter taluka Mawal till the trial is concluded. Mr.Jagtap, learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, submits that the applicant will stay with Shri Dyaneshwar Hanmant Lokhande at Pimpale Gurav, Vaidya Vasti, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune - 27 which falls within the jurisdiction of Navi Sangani police station. The applicant shall report to the Navi Sangani police station on every Wednesday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till conclusion of the trial. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 4 4 4 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)