( 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. 1302 of 2008 Kavita Bhalchandra Mhatre ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr R. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 19.06.2008. DATED : 19.06.2008. DATED : 19.06.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused application and the material available on record. 3. The applicant is seeking bail in ( 2 ) connection with C.R. No. I-328 of 2007 registered with Manpada Police Station, District Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 109, 114, 120-B of the I.P.C. 4. It appears that the complainant, Bhalchandra Mhatre, has implicated the present applicant alongwith one Gurunath Mhatre who lodged a complaint at Manpada Police Station alleging that the accused entered into a conspiracy to kill the complainant in a motor accident when the complainant on 4.11.2007 alongwith his friend Mohan Mhatre had gone to Khonigaon in order to search land. While returning, admittedly, one Tempo truck which was being driven by the applicant gave forcible dash to the motor bike of the complainant near village Antarligaon. Both of them suffered serious injuries and were admitted in the Hospital, namely; Rukhminibai Hospital at Kalyan. However, injured Mohan Mhatre was declared dead. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Gurunath, who according to the prosecution, is a prime accused alongwith the present ( 3 ) applicant, has already been released on bail under an order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan observing as under: "Heard Advocate Shri Telavane appearing on behalf of the applicant and Smt Gokhale appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the F.I.R., statement of witnesses and documents on record. It is admitted fact that one Dilip Mhatre informed about the incident dated 4.11.2008 which is taken place on the same day in which the complainant Bhalchandra along with his relative Mohan were returning to their village and when they came near Desai village one temp came behind them and dashed them and subsequently both of them sustained injuries and in this case Mohan was expired. Accordingly, accidental death is recorded under zero crime in Mahatma Phule Chowk police Station and under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter said report is submitted in Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station and on the report of Sr.Police Inspector, Manpada Police Station the offence is registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of I.P.C. After one month the complainant Bhalchandra lodged the complaint in Manpada Police Station alleging that applicant alongwith co-accused made conspiracy to kill in motor accident. Accordingly, the offence is registered under Crime No. I-328 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 120-B, 109, 110 of I.P.C. It is the fact that there is delay of more than one month in lodging the F.I.R. From the perusal of the statements of witnesses it is the case of circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence. It is also admitted fact that there is quarrel in between the complainant and his wife and his wife is ( 4 ) implicated in this crime as co-accused. The complainant was suspecting illicit relations of his wife with the applicant. So considering the allegations made against the applicant of illicit relation and considering statement of witnesses and more over the applicant is having permanent resident, investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, I hold that disclosing the name of the applicant in the F.I.R. is not sufficient to deny the right of bail to the applicant. For the above reasons, I hold that bail application of the applicant deserves to be allowed on certain terms and condition..." 6. Having seen the aforesaid observations on the same grounds, the present applicant would also be entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. In the result, following order is passed. a] The applicant, arrested in connection with C.R. No. I-328 of 2007 registered with Manpada Police Station, District Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 109, 114, 120-B of the I.P.C. be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local sureties to make up the said amount. ( 5 ) b] The applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station, as and when called by the I.O. till filing of the charge sheet. c] The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the Investigating Officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of trial without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer. d]The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. ( 6 ) e]The applicant shall co-operate with the Trial Court for disposal of the case. It is needless to mention that breach of any of the conditions by the applicant shall result in cancellation of bail. f] Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as finding or expression on merits of the case at the time of trial. 8. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.)