1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5821 of 2009 Tushar Ravindra Khangte ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.V.D. Raut for the applicant. Mr.A.S. Gadkari APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 27th January 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R.No.153 of 2008 registered at Chinchwad Police Station for an alleged offence punishable u/s.302, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on account of a quarrel which took place at a pan shop between Varsha Kamble and Taneja, her brother-in-law assaulted Raju (for short “the deceased”) who had tried to settle the quarrel. In the assault, four or five persons were assisting 2 Marappa Hiremath, the brother-in-law of Taneja. The deceased died on account of the assault. 4. First Information Report was lodged by the brother of the deceased. He specifically named three persons and mentioned presence of one unnamed person. The applicant was not named in the FIR. The statement recorded of another eye witness on the very day also does not mention about the presence of the applicant at the crime. Only after six days, statement of another Mr.Murtaza who is stated to be another eye witness was recorded in which he has named the present applicant for the first time. No explanation is offered why the statement of Murtaza, the alleged eye witness was not recorded for a period of six days. 5. Six other accused have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The ground of parity has been rejected on the ground that there was a discovery of the sickle at the instance of the applicant. The applicant is alleged to have discovered a sickle from an open space on 25th August 2008. On that day, applicant was not named either in the FIR or in the statement of any of the eye witnesses and it is not clear how the police connected the applicant to the crime and effected the alleged recovery. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in custody for last more than five months, in my view, applicant can be granted conditional bail. Hence, I pass the following order :- O R D E R 3 Applicant be released on bail on his executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to a condition that he shall report his presence to the concerned police station once a fortnight between 1st to 5th and 16th to 20th every British Calendar Month till the conclusion of the trial. In the event of breach of the conditions, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled forthwith. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)