1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 881 OF 2008 i) Ramakant Keshav Sogale ii) Umesh Vasant Patil iii) Baburao @ Bhalchandra P. Patil iv) Jitendra Suresh Patil .. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.Prakash Naik for the applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 26th March 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No. I-48/07 of Saphale police station for the alleged offence punishable u/s.436 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. The prosecution case is that in the early morning at about 4.00 a.m. on 25th May 2007 the applicants, on account of a previous enmity, set on fire the house of Harshala Hareshwar Sogale. She filed the First Information Report about the alleged crime at about 12.45 noon on the same day. In the FIR, she has named the applicants as the persons who set the house on fire. However, in the very statement she has stated that she or her relatives have not seen anybody setting the house on fire. 4. The application for pre-arrest bail made by the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court interalia on the ground that there were two other eye witneses viz. Sudhir Sogale and Subhash Jadhav, Statement of Sudhir Sogale and Subhash Jadhav, the alleged eye witnesses, were recorded after 15 days. It is not clear why their statements were not recorded earlier. Sudhir Sogale is the son of First Informant and therefore if he really is an eye witness his statement could have been and ought to have been recorded on the same day or immediately thereafter. No explanation is forthcoming for the delay in recording of his statement. Subhash Jadhav was not named as an eye witnesses by anybody. It is anybody’s guess how the police came to know that Subhash Jadhav was an eye witness and decided to 3 record his statement and that too after 15 days of the incident. In the circumstances, prima facie the statements of alleged eye witnesses would require closer scrutiny at trial. 5. There is no other material connecting the applicants to the crime. In the circumstances, in my view, they can be granted bail subject to the condition of attendance and co-operation in the investigation. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R . In the event the applicants or any of them is arrested, each of them shall be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.20,000/- together with two sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions:- i) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make an inducement or threats to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall not in any way interfere with the investigation. ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station for interrogation once a week on every Monday between 10 and 12 noon for a period of 12 4 weeks and thereafter once a month between 1st and 5th day of British Calendar month till the filing of the charge-sheet. . This order shall come to an end after the charge sheet is filed whereupon the applicants may, if they so desire, apply to the court for regular bail. If such an application is made, the Court shall consider it on its own merits without being in any way influenced by any of the observations made herein. (D.G. KARNIK, J)