Farad Continuation Sheet No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3608/2008 (Vinod Wagh & 11 others ..vs.. State ) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.S. Manohar, Advocate for applicants . Mr. Thakre, A.P.P. for state. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 11, 2008. This is an application by 12 persons for admitting them on bail under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for their alleged involvement in Crime NO.65/2008 of Police Station Kingaon Raja. On 15.10.2008 when the application came up for hearing first, interim bail was granted to applicant no.3 and 6 to 12 on the belief that they had not been ascribed any specific role in the copy of the First Information Report filed. This was incorrect inasmuch as role was ascribed to applicant no.10 Karbhari Arjun Khandare who was named as non applicant no.5 in the First Information Report. Non applicant no.2 in the First Information Report Raju Sheshrao Gunjal is not, an applicant in this case. Non applicant no.4 Dnyaneshwar Himmat Mundhe is applicant no.2. Interim bail was refused to applicant no.2 Dnyaneshwar Himmat Mundhe. Regretable though the error is, since persons concerned are present in the court, Investigating Officer can apply the necessary corrective. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.P.P. and have perused the case diary which the learned A.P.P. made available. Except for statements recorded on 16.10.2008 i.e. after interim order was passed, involvement of applicant no.3 to 9 and 11 and 12 is not indicated. The offence itself was committed on 11.9.2008. It is not clear as to why the police could get the statement indicating involvement of these persons only after an interim order was passed by this court. In view of this considering the nature of allegations made as also that a counter case is filed at the behest of some of the applicant, as also the fact that the First Information Report itself refers that the assailants had dropped the weapons and ran away, it is not necessary to subject the applicants no.3 to 9 and 11 and 12 to custodial investigation. Application of applicant no.1,2 and 10 is rejected. Interim bail granted to applicant no.10 is cancelled. In the event of arrest of applicant no.3 to 9 and 11 and 12, they be released on furnishing P.R. Bond in Rs.25000/- each with solvent surety each in like amount on the condition that they shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall report to the concerned Investigating Officer on 17.11.2008 at 10.00 a.m. and thereafter as and when required by Investigating Officer. JUDGE smp.