1409appln1343.10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1343 OF 2010 (Mohd. Javed s/o Subedar Mansoori Vs. State of Maharashtra) ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S. P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A. R. Taiwade, A.P.P. for respondent-State. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 14 th September, 2010. The applicant is seeking grant of bail in connection with crime No. 88/2009 registered by Nagpuri Gate Police Station, Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 302, 143, 147, 148, 506-B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal COde and further read with Section 4 and 5 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Heard submissions made by the respective Counsel for the respective parties. Some of the co-accused have already been released on bail mainly on the ground that no active role was attributed to them in the crime. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the applicant made reference to the earlier order passed by this Court granting benefit of bail to some of the co-accused. The accusation made against the accused are no doubt serious in nature. In the reply filed by the respondent-State in para No. 4, with reference to the statement made by one witness Smt. Bano, it is stated that that accused Mohd. Javed was holding sword, however, according to the learned A. P. P., he was holding Kattha and not the sword, as per the statement of Smt. Bano. The learned A.P.P. further states that the statement : accused Mohd. Javed was holding sword, is made by mistake. Further mistake, according to her, as per para 7 of the reply, that the applicant was absconding 1409appln1343.10.odt from the date of the incident and came to be arrested on 30/7/2009. She seeks to make statement in this regard that the applicant was arrested on the date of the incident. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while taking instructions from the Investigating Officer, concerned, must make correct and responsible statement particularly when such statements are made on solemn affirmation under the signature of the Police Officer, concerned giving instructions to the Additional Public Prosecutor. It is a matter of common knowledge that reply is drafted by the A. P. P. concerned and it is typed with the help of Steno, but, before making signatures, verification has to be made properly with reference to the statements made in the reply as it does affect personal liberty of the person applying for grant of bail. In future, such false and misleading statement would not be tolerated. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to pass the following order. : The applicant shall be released on bail upon his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more surety/sureties in the equal amount, provided that; (i) he shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner, (ii) he shall inform his fixed address with telephone/ mobile number, if any, to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court and shall inform change in the address, if any, during the pendency of the trial, (iii) the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing in the trial Court and he shall not misuse the liberty in any manner. The application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE wwl