1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 409/2011 (Sudhakar Madhukar Wankhede ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Daryapur, Tah. Daryapur, Distt. Amravati) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. S. Doifode, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 15.9.2011. 1. Heard Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. S. S. Doifode, learned APP for the Respondent- State. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 16/10/2010 in Crime No. 153/2010 registered with the Daryapur Police Station, for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), has filed the present application for bail. 3. The allegations made by the complainant namely Sanjay H. Ingle who is the brother-in-law of the applicant, are as follows: (i) On 15/10/2010, at about 10.00 p.m. on the Daryapur- Anjangaon road, seven alleged accused persons chased him and his 2 maternal uncle namely Sadashiv Tayade on motorcycle and thereafter attacked them. It is further alleged that there was a dispute going on between the present applicant and the sister of Sanjay, who are husband and wife, on custody of their child and the wife and her family members say that they got possession of the child from Murtizapur Police Station, on account of which the applicant and others committed the offence. 4. The applicant has alleged in the present application that Sanjay has lodged the report by making false and vague allegations for taking revenge. It is further stated in the application that the applicant is innocent and that the other four accused namely Prabhakar Wankhede and Prashant Wankhede against whom similar allegations were leveled have been granted regular bail by this Court by order dated 28th April 2011, passed in Criminal Application (BA) No. 145/2011. The applicant has, therefore, prayed for release on bail on the ground of parity and has also stated that he is ready to abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. 5. By way of reply, the respondent has resisted the application stating that there is eye-witness in the form of Sanjay who has attributed overt act to the present applicant also. It was the motive for the applicant because he was not intending to hand over custody of the child to Nalubai and deceased was the maternal uncle of Nalubai. It is further alleged in the reply that a case of the 3 co-accused Shrawan Gawande is similar to the present applicant but the bail application no. 42/2011, filed by him was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn. 6. I have perused the material on record mainly the initial statement of Sanjay Ingle recorded on 16/10/2010 and his supplementary statement recorded on 21/10/2010. It is seen that the main allegation leveled against the present applicant is squeezing of private part of Sanjay, though there is a general statement that all accused also assaulted the deceased Sadashiv. Prima facie it is seen that the death of the deceased Sadashiv occurred on account of cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia as a result of throttling though the deceased has also sustained fracture of ribs, etc. The allegation of strangulation of deceased is only against Deepak. It is seen that the allegations against the present applicant as far as the deceased is concerned, are similar to those which are against Prabhakar Wankhede and Prashant Wankhede, both of whom have already been ordered to be released on bail by this Court by order dated 28th April 2011, in Criminal Application (BA) No. 145/2011. 7. The contention of the learned A.P.P. that the bail application filed by Shrawan Gawande was dismissed as withdrawn after hearing the matter on merits cannot be said to be true as the perusal of the order dated 17/02/2011 in Criminal Application (BA) 4 No. 42/2011 reveals that the learned Counsel for Shrawan stated that the applicant had not filed application for bail before the Sessions Court after submission of the charge-sheet and, therefore, he was withdrawing the application with liberty to file application before the Court of Session. The application of Shrawan was disposed of accordingly as withdrawn. 8. More than 10 months have now passed, after the arrest of the applicant and the matter has already been charge-sheeted. No purpose will be served by keeping the present applicant in custody now when two co-accused namely Prabhakar Wankhede and Prashant Wankhede, who are similarly placed in the matter as far as the incident is concerned, have been already granted bail. The applicant in my view, deserves bail on the ground of parity. There is no allegation against the applicant that he is previous convict or that he is likely to flee from justice, if released on bail. 9. In the result, the application is allowed. 10. The applicant shall be released on bail in the said crime no. 153/2010, upon execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount under the following conditions : - (i) After his release on bail, the applicant shall not leave 5 the precincts of Murtizapur Police Station in which he is staying, save and except for attending the court cases and he shall also attend the said Police Station on every Monday in between 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. until further orders; (ii) He shall not indulge in any activity of tampering with prosecution evidence and/or indulge in any activity hampering the progress of the trial; (iii) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. 11. The application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Punde.