1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4371 OF 2009 Balaji S/o.Shankar Jadhav, Age-35 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Pandhari-vasti, Kharola, Tq.Renapur, Dist. Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 14/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.122/2009, registered in Renapur Police Station for the alleged offence u/s. 307, 323, 504 r/w.34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. From the submissions across the bar, it appears that on the basis of complaint lodged by one Dattatraya Kishan, the present crime was registered against the 2 present applicant and others. As per the narration of the incident, the incident took place in the afternoon of 23/10/2009 at the hands of present applicant and others. It further appears that the complaint was lodged on the complaint of present applicant against the complainant in that case which offence was registered vide CR No.123/2009 for an offence punishable u/s. 147, 148, 149, 435, 504, 506 r/w. 429 of The IPC and u/s. 3(i)(x) of The Atrocities Act against the complainant in the present CR and others. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with this case on 24/10/2009 and since then he is in custody. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is urged that like the complaint is lodged against the present applicant, the present applicant has also lodged complaint against the complainant herein and her family members. My attention is also drawn that there is dispute between the family of applicant and the complainant on the basis of agricultural land dispute for which civil suit was filed which was decided in favour of the present applicant. Due to that, the party of the complainant is having grudge with the present applicant and have damaged the cattle shed and the property of the present applicant. Accused other than the present applicant in this crime were released on bail, like the complainant side were also released on bail in connection with crime no.123/2009 registered in the same police station. 4. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the bail 3 application on the ground that there is prima facie evidence against the present applicant. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, the fact is clear that since the date of arrest for about 80 days, the applicant is behind bars. Material investigation in respect of the said complaint is over as the statement of material witnesses were already recorded during the course of investigation. It appears that only CA reports are awaited and on receipt of these reports, charge sheet will be filed. Considering these aspects as there are counter complaints against the family of present applicant as well as by the family of present applicant against the family of the complainant, there are no chances that the witnesses of the prosecution will be tampered and will allow to be tampered at the hands of applicant. As there are counter complaints, there are no chances for the present applicant that the applicant will not face the trial as for the accusation against the complainant in the present crime, the present applicant is the complainant therein. Then the only last consideration if there are no chances of tampering the witnesses of prosecution, there are no chances that the applicant will abscond and will not face the trial and the entire investigation is practically over, then this is not a case where the applicant to keep in custody for uncertain period. In the premise, in peculiar situation, the applicant herein entitled to be enlarged on bail on certain conditions. In the premise, the application deserves following order : O R D E R 4 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing the PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to tamper with the witnesses of prosecution. 4. Applicant not to leave the local jurisdiction without previous permission in writing from the Investigation Officer concerned, and after filing of the charge sheet from the concerned competent court of Law. 5. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.4371-09