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 JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2009 Shri Arjun Rangrao Patil ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the Applicant. Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.D.S. Mahispurkar for the Original Complaiant. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant, APP for the State and Counsel for the complainant. 2. The applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 read with 34 of the IPC. 3. The only material which is on record against the present applicant is the statement of one witness Arun Salunkhe which was recorded on 23.7.2006 in which he states that he had seen the applicant talking from coin box phone which was near the hotel and the applicant is alleged to have said on the phone that the deceased and - 2 - his son are likely to come near spot and therefore, the work should be done. This witness has further stated that after sometime, he learnt that Dilip Patil had been murdered. The other material which is on record is that the applicant was seen near the place of incident on a motorcycle and this motorcycle was found abandoned at the spot after the Dilip was assaulted by the other accused. 4. Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the applicant’s application was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court and no liberty was granted to file a fresh application. He further submitted that the trial is already ready for hearing, however, the applicant had filed an application for stay of the trial. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submitted that they had challenged the appointment of the Public Prosecutor who was appointed to appear on behalf of the Government and the Hon’ble High court had allowed the said petition and against this order, the Government had filed a SLP in the Apex - 3 - Court which was pending. He submitted that he had informed the trial court that he had no objection if any other Public Prosecutor was ready to conduct the case. However, this was objected by the prosecution and under those circumstances, the application for stay had been rejected. 6. In my view, since the only material on record is a statement of the witness hearing the alleged conversation between the applicant on phone and recovery of the motorcycle of the applicant near the place of incident, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, firstly, because the applicant is in jail since last more than two years and secondly, prima facie, this material does not appear to be sufficient for the purpose of convicting the accused for the said offence. There is no material on record to show that there was conspiracy between the applicant and other co-accused. The mere recovery of the motorcycle of the applicant at the seen of the incident or motive is present at the seen of the incident prior to the assault, also would not indicate that he had participated in the said crime. - 4 - 7. The learned APP, however, submitted that the applicant had threatened two witnesses. 8. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that on one occasion when the alleged threat was given, the applicant was in jail. 9. Even otherwise, in order to ensure that the applicant does not threaten the witnesses, certain conditions can be imposed while granting bail. Lastly, merely because the application filed by the applicant was earlier allowed to be withdrawn, that does not create a bar in filing the second application after a lapse of some time. His earlier application was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court in 2007. More than two months have passed and therefore, even if liberty was not granted by this Court, the applicant is entitled to file second application for bail. Since the application was not heard on merits, this application can be entertained by this Court. - 5 - 10. Under these circumstances, the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall not enter Sangli District pending the hearing and final disposal of the trial. The applicant shall reveal his new address before he is released and shall report to the nearest police station from his new address twice in a month. 11. The applicant shall not threaten any witness. If any complaint is received by the police, his bail shall be cancelled. 12. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)