1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5765 OF 2010 Dinesh S. Yadav ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Silvin Kale, adv. For the Applicant. Smt.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : DECEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the police papers. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that, complainant Smt. Laddu J. Jaiswal resides nears the public toilets on S.P.Road, Vadala and near her house Ramchandra Jaiswal and his wife Chhaladevi also reside. The present applicant was an employee of Ramchandra. The present applicant had beaten child and said Ramchandra on 2.11.2010 at about 9 a.m. Chhaladevi wife of Ramchandra applauded the action of the present applicant. On this exchange of hot words took place. Said Chhaladevi, Ramchandra, one Virendra and the present applicant assaulted them. The present applicant had assaulted her with bamboo sticks. Some neighbours intervened and in the said incident one neighbour Kalavati 2 was also injured with bamboo stick. Report was lodged with police. On medical examination, it was revealed that Kalavati had suffered fracture to her index finger. No other person had suffered any visible injury. 3 On the basis of this police have registered crime no.190 of 2010 under Sections 325, 323 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. Additional Sessions Judge Mr. Purohit rejected bail application filed by the present applicant mainly on the ground that applicant has no permanent residence in the Mumbai or Maharashtra and there is apprehension that it will be difficult to secure his presence at the time of trial. Another accused, Virendra in the same case was granted bail wherein another learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly observed that the offence is under Sections 323 and 325 and it is not clear how and why it is converted in Section 326 of the I.P.C. Police papers submitted alongwith the bail application reveals that the police had represented that offence under Section 326 is registered. Investigation is not completed and charge-sheet is not filed. It appears that investigation officer has wrongly represented before the Sessions Court that the case was under Section 326 of the IPC. In view of the facts, case could not be under Section 326 but only under Section 325 of the I.P.C. Offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 is bailable and, therefore, it is right of the accused 3 to be released on bail. This aspect was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the present applicant. 4 The learned APP contended that applicant should be asked to produce his permanent address. It appears that complainant as well as accused are living in slum area. In such circumstances to refuse bail only because applicant may not have documentary evidence to show his permanent address will not be justified. 5 Therefore, applicant be released on his executing PR of Rs. 10,000/- with surety in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper the prosecution evidence and also that he shall report at Vadala police station on every Sunday between 10 a.m. and 12 noon till the filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter, on the first day of every month. 6 Parties to act on an authenticated copy of the order. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)