1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4013 OF 2009 Lazam Allauddin Hodekar ....... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. A.P.Mundargi Sr. counsel i/b. Vinayak Patil adv. for the Applicant Mrs. S.D.Shinde APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 15th October, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present applicant is the original accused no.4 in C.R. No. 19/09 registered with Karad City police station for offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 212, 120-B read with 34 of IPC and 3/25, 5/27 of Indian Arms Act6 and Sec. 56/142 of Bombay Police Act. The present application is moved by the applicant under section 439 of Cr.P.C. consequent upon the applicant’s arrest on 13-2-2009. The applicant is in custody since 13-2-2009 till date. 2. According to the prosecution, one Sanjay Patil (deceased) is allegedly murdered by two unknown persons by firing bullets outside hotel Shivdarshan near DMS complex, Malkhapur road, at 2 Karad, District Satara. According to the prosecution Sanjay Patil (deceased) had gone to the said place along with his friends. After firing bullets at Sanjay Patil, the two assailants ran way on motor cycle. 3. So far as the present applicant is concerned, there are identical statements of three witnesses by name Rajendra, Narayan and Paresh who are employees working in hotel Damodar. Perusal of the said statements, reveal that four persons had stayed in the hotel on 9th and 10th of February 2009 and one of those persons was referred to by one of the co-accused Salim Shaikh to be the present applicant. According to the learned senior counsel for the applicant the said three witnesses have not identified the present applicant as the person who had stayed in the hotel in the company of Salim Shaikh and others as no test identification parade was conducted. There are two more witnesses by name Indrate Srinivas Murlidhar and Benguri Navalappa Shivmurthi. The said two witnesses are the persons working at Aditi lodge at which place the applicant has allegedly stayed on 11th and 12th of February 2009 in the company of other co-accused. The said two witnesses have stated that one of the persons who had stayed in the lodge had introduced himself as Lazam Hodekar the present applicant. The said two witnesses as well have not identified the present applicant as no test identification parade was conducted. Barring the statement of the said five witnesses who happen to be the persons working in the hotels, wherein the applicant has allegedly stayed in the company of the co-accused on 9th, 10Th, 3 11th and 12th of February 2009 there is no other material or circumstance available against the present applicant to connect him with the crime as conspirator by virtue of section 120-B of IPC. 4. My attention is also invited to the two orders passed by this court dated 12th June and 26th June 2009 passed in Criminal Application No. 2524/09 and 2729/09 respectively granting bail to original accused nos.8 and 9 by name Muddassar Nijam Momin and Sachin Laxman Chavan. 5. Perused the orders. Prima facie there is hardly any mateirla available against the present applicant being a conspirator in the commission of the offence. The date of incident is 15-1-2009 whereas the applicant is allegedly stayed at the aforesaid two hotels in the company of the co-accused on 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th of February 2009 i.e. almost after a period of about month. There is no material to indicate any agreement between the conspirators prior to the commission of the offence. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, in my view this is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence I pass the following order. 6. The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount subject to further condition that the applicant shall report the concerned police station twice a week i.e. Wednesday and Saturday between 6 and 7 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)