1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 384 OF 2011 ( Pradeep Mulchand Ukey Vs. State of Mah. PSO PS Mohadi Distt.Bhandra) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri S. V. Sirpurkar Adv for applicant. Shri N. R. Rode APP for non applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 29th JULY, 2011. . Applicant who has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 90 of 2010, registered with the Police Station Mohadi under Section 302, 201, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, is seeking his release on bail pending trial. One Shobha wife of Arun Nagalwade has affairs with Sukhdev (accused no.1). The deceased was a stumbling block in their affair. Therefore, accused no.1 with the help of the present applicant decided to eliminate Arun. Arun with his wife left the house and thereafter on the next day his dead body was found on Andhalgaon Road with homicidal injuries. 2 Learned Additional Sessions Judge. Bhandara dealt with an application for bail presented by the applicant. Vide his order dated 31.04.2011 he rejected the bail application by observing that “Admittedly, the chargesheet has been filed in the present matter. However, on perusal of the same it is evident that accused no.2 has given memorandum in which he had admitted the fact that he was present at the time of incident with accused no.1 and also taken part in commission of crime by throttling the deceased. Moreover, one witness Bablu Sayyed has also seen the accused no. 2 with the deceased just before the incident. Moreover he has also identified him in the T.I.Parade. That means, there is prima facie evidence available on record regarding the involvement of accused no.2 in the alleged crime. Hence considering the seriousness of the offence against the accused I am not inclined to release accused no.2 on bail.” Admittedly the statement made to the police is inadmissible. Hence only piece of evidence is the circumstance of last seen and to prove that there is statement of Bablu Sayyed. It is in his statement that at about 8 p.m. when he was sitting outside his house he saw three strangers walking by the road. All the three were drunk. On 23.10.10 applicant was arrested and identification parade was held on 07.12.2010. According to this witness amongst those three, to 3 whom he had seen walking by the road, one was the applicant no. 2. In my view, on the basis of such evidence the bail cannot be denied to the accused. Applicant-Pradeep Mulchand Ukey be released on bail on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount with a condition that he shall not influence the witnesses. JUDGE svk