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 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2009 Jatin Dnyaneshwar Sankhe, ..Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra, ... Respondent. Mr.Atul G Damle, for the applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 15/04/200 DATE : 15/04/200 DATE : 15/04/2009 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.(FIR) No.I-37 of 2009 of Palghar police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 395,307,342, 171(K), 2(A), 427 r/w 3 and 25 of Arms Act. 3. The incident occurred on the eve of elections of the Palghar Municipal council. There was a fight between two groups and both the groups have lodged complaints against each other. I have perused the FIRs lodged by them both. Both the FIRs give different story, insofar as the present applicant is concerned. All the accused, except the present applicant, in both the cases have been released on bail by the Sessions Court and while doing so in para 5 of the order, the Sessions Court has made the following observations: "5. After going through the case diary in both the crimes, it is revealed that still the investigation is in progress. Though the revolver was sent to the finger and Ballastic Expert, no fingerprints were found on the said revolver. In such circumstances, it will be too early to speak anything regarding the fact of aggressive party. However, case diary shows that custodial interrogation of the applicants in both the crimes has been completed. Revolver has been seized by police. It is a licensed revolver. If the injuries on the person of either on the injured persons are taken into consideration, it will reveal that those are simple injuries. Still there is nothing on record to conclude that offence under section 307 of IPC can be made out in both the crimes. The applicants in both the applications are having permanent residence within the limits of this court. It is necessary to take into consideration the fact that even if the incident occurred on 25.3.2009, there was peaceful polling in Palghar town for Municipal Council on that day. Therefore, the applicants can be released on bail. However, it is brought to my notice that the applicant Jatin Sankhe has been involved in many other crimes. Learned Advocate Shri Sankhe for him submitted that he has been acquitted in all crimes. He has submitted copy of Judgment in Reg.Criminal Case No.29/2002. Even though the applicant has been acquitted,it is for failure of prosecution to prove the guilt. Copy of Judgment does not show that the incident itself was false or that Jatin Sankhe was falsely involved in said incident. If both FIRs 37/09 and 38/09 are taken into consideration, it will reveal that Jatin Sankhe is the person who initiated quarrel. it is also necessary to take into consideration the ensuing election for electing President of Palghar Municipal Council". 4. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations against the applicant, who seems to be a leader of his group, I am satisfied that his continuing detention is not necessary and he also deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order. . The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two local sureties to make up the said amount, subject to condition that he shall not enter the Palghar Town for a period of six months. The applicant shall keep informed his address to the concerned police station, where he proposes to reside during this period, and shall report to the nearest police station from the place of his residence on every Saturday between 10 and 11 am till conclusion of the trial. . While granting this application, 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. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)