1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3514 /2009 [ Shabbirkhan Maytabkhan Pathan 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. R K Tiwari, Adv.for applicant/s Mr C N Adgokar,APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 6, 2010. Heard. By this application, the applicant is praying for bail in connection with Crime No. 48/2009 reported at Mul Police Station District Chandrapur for offence punishable under sections 302, 396, 412, 201 IPC. Learned Advocate submitted that the dead body of a unknown person was found some time in February 2009, which was buried on 11.2.2009 after conducting post- mortem over the same. On 24.2.2009, photographs of the dead body was seen by one Manoj Shahu who identified that photograph to be one of Sugandh Hanwate and expressed doubt that the said deceased might have been done to death. Hence the dead body was exhumed again and second post-mortem examination was conducted in which the Doctor gave opinion that the death was due to strangulation. Hence crime No. 124/2009 came to be registered and investigation has been done. The charge-sheet is already 2 filed in the Sessions Court bearing Sessions Case No. 73/2009 which is pending. Learned Advocate for further submitted that co-accused Vipin Poreddiwar and Suraj Pullarwar who were similarly situated like the applicant, were granted the benefit of bail by this Court by a reasoned order passed on 28.1.2009, mainly on the ground that chances of conviction appeared remote in view of the material collected during the investigation. The applicant claimed parity with the applicants in Cri. Appln.No. 2753/2009 and 2691/2009 who were granted benefit of bail on 21.8.2009. 2. Learned APP objected grant of bail on the ground that there is likelihood of similar offence if the applicant is released on bail and an apprehension that the applicant is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence. I think this apprehension can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions against the applicant particularly in view of the nature of material collected during the course of investigation. It appears that chances of conviction in this case are remote. Hence the following order : The applicant be released on bail upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the equal amount, provided that the applicant shall attend the trial on each date of hearing, shall not misuse his liberty in any manner and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence connected with the case and shall inform his fixed address with change of 3 address. If any, with phone /mobile no. to the I.O. Application is allowed accordingly. Humdast granted. JUDGE sahare