1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2197 OF 2009 Prashant Tanaji Chorge .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mrs.Revati Mohite Dere for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 7TH JULY, 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.193 of 2008 of Pandharpur City police station. The crime has been registered against the applicant and six others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 141, 144, 148, 149, 201, 120-B of IPC and sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that all the accused 2 committed murder of Hiralal Jadhav on 3.12.2008 between 9.15 pm and 9.30 pm. There are seven eye witnesses to the incident. Most of the eye witnesses were not knowing the accused and, therefore, they have not named them in the statements. However, insofar as the eye witness - Nagnath Lalla Pawar is concerned, he has stated in detail as to how the incident occurred and has named four accused, and has further stated that one unknown persons was also amongst the assailants, who killed Hiralal Jadhav. According to the prosecution, the unknown persons is the present applicant. Such suspicion, according to Mrs.Mohite-Dere, rests on the statement of the co-accused. She submitted that except the statement of co-accused there is absolutely no material on record to connect the applicant with the alleged incident. She further submitted that the statement of the co-accused is not admissible in the evidence, and in view thereof the applicant is entitled for bail. She then submitted that no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution. Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P. could not and did not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. In view thereof, in my opinion, the applicant is entitled for bail. Hence the following order: Applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned 3 police station on every Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm till conclusion of the trial. At this stage Mrs.Mohite-Dere, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Pune and, therefore, he may be allowed to report to nearest police station from his residence. Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P. has no objection for issuing such directions. Hence the applicant is directed to report the nearest police station from his residence in the City of Pune on every Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm till conclusion of the trial. The applicant is also directed to remain present on every date of hearing before the Sessions Court. 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.)