: 1 : : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3894 OF 2006 Houshiram Shripati Gund .. ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharshtra ..Respondent Mr.Milind Deshmukh for applicant Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for State CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2006 P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Deshmukh appearing for Applicant and Shri Nakhwa appearing for the State. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 6.6.2006 in connection with C.R.No.164 of 2004 registered at Lonikalbhor Police Station. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal : 2 : : Code. 3. My attention is invited by Shri Deshmukh to an order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the case of co-accused Machindra Namdeo Kunjir. The trial court has allowed his application by holding that the case is of last seen together. There is no direct evidence. In Para 5 of the order this is what is observed by the learned judge: "5. ........No doubt, certain incriminating articles and cash & amount alleged to have recovered at the instance of applicant. However, it is connecting piece of evidence and would be assessed at the time of trial. The investigation is completed. I do not see any reason to continue the detention of applicant behind the bars. So far as apprehension put forth by the prosecution is concerned about tampering witnesses, and danger to the family of deceased, stringent conditions can be imposed on the applicant while enlarging on bail. It may protect the rights and interest of the prosecution." : 3 : : This order is passed on 18th September, 2006 4. Upon Machindra Kunjir, co-accuseds being enlarged on bail, the present applicant also preferred second application and the learned Judge has denied the relief claimed on the ground of parity by observing that there is a recovery as far as the present applicant is concerned. However, a perusal of para 5 of the order passed in the case of the present applicant on 11.10.2006 would reveal that the learned Judge has rejected the application relying upon some Xerox copy of a complaint made by the wife of the deceased to ACP, Pune (Rural) alleging some threats being given by the present applicant to her and her brothers. 5. These are really sorry state of affairs because neither the original letter is produced nor are any details forthcoming in that behalf. The learned judge should not to have been influenced by production of a xerox copy because it was a vague assertion. In so far as the recoveries are concerned, some incriminating articles (nylon rope) were recovered at the instance of the co-accused Machindra Kunjir. Yet, he has been enlarged on : 4 : : bail. Similar apprehension was expressed about him but the learned Judge thought it fit to impose conditions while granting bail to the co-Accused. 6. The learned APP has been unable to point out any distinction between the case of the present applicant and that of co-accused Machindra Kunjir. In such circumstances, on the ground of parity the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail with similar conditions. ORDER : (i) The applicant arrested in connection with C.R.No.164/2004 registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station shall be enlarged in the sum of Rs.15,000/= with one or two local sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicant shall not enter the area of Papade Vasti, Bhekarayeee Nagar, Phursungi, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune till conclusion of trial. (ii) The applicant would report to Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Dist. Pune once in a week till : 5 : : the conclusion of the trial. (iii) 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 addresses where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of the trial without prior intimation to the investigating office. (iv) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (v) The applicant shall cooperate with the learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the case. Any attempt by the applicant to delay the trail may be a ground for cancellation of bail. (vi) Any observation made in this order shall : 6 : : not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion of the merits of the case at the time of trial. (vii) Application is disposed of in above terms. (viii) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)