1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application No. (BA) No. 484/2011 Rajesh Ramprasad Kuhikar Vs. State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 21/09/2011. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhangde, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.A. Kadu, leaned APP for the respondent. The applicant, who has been arrested on 20.1.2011 by Tahsil Nagpur Police in Crime No.21/2011 for offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 324, 302, 201 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, has filed the present application for bail. The applicant has alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that none of the witnesses has named him as having participated in the assault. It is also stated by the applicant that nothing has been recovered at his instance except his blood sample. He has stated that co-accused has already been released by the learned Sessions Judge. The respondent has filed reply resiting the 2 application. In the reply, it is alleged that Devdas Shendekar has lodged complaint on 19.1.2011 contending that on 17.1.2011 at night time there was quarrel between the present applicant and his younger brother Guddu Laxman Shendekar due to which relations between the two families were strained. It is further stated in the reply that on 19.1.2011 at about 9.30 a.m. Dinesh Shendekar, the brother of the complainant was assaulted and done to death. It is stated in the reply that from the charge-sheet, it is clear that the present applicant is one of the members of unlawful assembly formed by the accused persons with intention to kill the deceased and in terms of Section 149 of IPC there is prima facie case against the applicant. A perusal of the statements of Amol Kumbhalkar recorded on 21.1.2011 and again on 24.1.2011 reveals the present applicant has not been named as assailant. In fact, in the previous statement on 21.1.2011, Amol Kumbhalkar has stated that he knows the present applicant as Home-guard and that he had not seen the applicant at the spot of the incident. The statements of Subhash Parde and Dnyaneshwar Dhapekar initially recorded by Police Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subsequently recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reveal that the applicant is not involved in the main incident of assault. It is also seen 3 from the record that nothing incriminating has been recovered at the instance of the applicant and mere seizure of sample of his blood cannot be called as incriminating material. In short, it appears that there is no prima facie evidence against the present applicant. The investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been filed and the case has already been committed to the Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Trial No.219/2011. In the circumstances above, no purpose will be served by detaining the applicant in Magisterial Custody. Hence, the application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail in the said Crime No.21/2011 of Tahsil Nagpur Police Station (Sessions Trial No. 219/2011) upon execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, under the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. (ii)The applicant shall not involve himself in any similar crime and (iii)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Trial Court Hamdast is permitted. JUDGE Ambulkar.