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 SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3630 OF 2008 Rajesh @ Lankya Maruti Rukare .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.M.B.Zanwar for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhiya for the respondent-State. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. DATED: 10.11.2008 DATED: 10.11.2008 DATED: 10.11.2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant has prayed for bail in C.R.No. 844 of 2007 of Swargate poilce station, Pune. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and eight others for having allegedly committing an offence under sections 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. 3. I have perused the statements of the complainant and the two other witnesses. In the FIR and the first supplementary statement, the complainant - Hrishikesh Bhosale has not even named the applicant. In the third statement he has stated that the applicant was also present at the relevant time. The other two witnesses, and more particularly Nitin Jagtap, have also stated that the applicant was present at the relevant time and that he was armed with country made revolver. No specific overt act is attributed to the present applicant. There are no allegations of using the firearm in the alleged incident by the applicant. 4. Mr.Zanwar, learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the order passed by this court dated 4.8.2008 in Criminal Application No.2306 of 2008 by which one of the accused in the instant crime, namely, Purushottam Aniruddha Kolhe came to be released on bail and submitted that there is absolutely no difference between the role attributed to the present applicant and the role attributed to the co-accused - Purushottam Kolhe. I have perused the order dated 4.8.2008. Even without entering into a controversy whether there is difference between the role attributed to the present applicant and the role of Purushottam Kolhe, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations against the applicant, I am inclined to grant him bail. Hence, I pass the following order: . The applicant to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/ with one or two sureties in the like amount subject to the condition that the applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Swargate police station, Pune for a period of six months from the date of his release. Before being released on bail the applicant shall inform to the investigating agency the address at which he proposes to reside during the aforesaid period. He shall also report to nearest police station from his residence on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for a period of six months and thereafter he shall report to the Swargate police station, Pune till the conclusion of 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 without being influenced by the observations made in this order. The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)