1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2608 OF 2009 Ravindra Sitaram Bhaur .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Anil Joshi for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 19th June, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-223 of 2008 of Wagle Estate Police Station, Thane. The crime has been registered against the applicant and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 143, 147, 149 of IPC. 3. There are three eye witnesses to the alleged incident, namely, the complainant – Sushila Patayit, Satyabhama Yadav and Dwarka Potfode. They all state that they saw 7-8 persons assaulting the deceased with kick and fist blows. The deceased – Suresh died of multiple injuries. I have perused the statements 2 of all three eye witnesses. From their statements it appears that except Manish they were not knowing the name of other accused presons including the applicant. The complainant in her supplementary statement has stated that she came to know the names of the assailants subsequently. Satyabhama Yadav and Dwarka Potfode have specifically stated that they were knowing the boys who were assaulting the deceased but they did not know their names, except one Manish Dhadve. In the concluding paragraph they have stated that they came to know the names of the assailants and have accordingly mentioned their names in the statements. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the persons who actually assaulted the deceased and the persons named by these witnesses are same. No test identification parade was conducted by the police nor did they show the accused persons to the witnesses in the police lock-up. Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P. fairly submitted that no test identification parade was conducted. In view thereof I do find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no material on record to show that the applicant was amongst the persons who actually assaulted the deceased. Mr.Saste submitted that the witness may be able to identify the applicant in the court during trial. What would be the evidenciary value of 3 such identification, in my opinion, need not be considered at this stage. The applicant came to be arrested in October, 2008. The trial is likely to take long time. The four accused in this case, being juvenile, have already been released on bail. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that continued detention of the applicant is not necessary. Hence the following order: Applicant to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station every Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm 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 uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)