1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.609/2011. (Rajendra Dwarkadas Kalyani Vs. State of Mah. Thro. PSO PS Jaripatka, Nagpur) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Anil Mardikar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N.R. Rode, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant/State. ----- CORAM: U.V. BAKRE, J. DATE: 20 TH OCTOBER, 2011. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 02.09.2011 in Crime No.275/2011 registered at Police Station Jaripatka, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 384, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, has filed the present application for bail. 3. The allegation against the applicant is that he along with other co-accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Thakurdas Jethwani and other members of his family who were in the shop and during the course of incident the co- accused Prakash Kalyani fired his licensed pistol and caused bullet injuries to two persons, whereas the present applicant took the pistol from Prakash Kalyani and fired at injured Kishor Jethwani and caused him bullet injuries. 2 4. It is seen from the record that there is dispute between the two parties regarding the shop and one of the members of the opposite party by name Sushil Dwarkadas Kalyani had also lodged a complaint in respect of the same incident, alleging that Thakurdas Jethwani and his family member assaulted him and others with sticks. An offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered under Crime No. 276/2011 against the complainant and others. From the complaint of Thakurdas Jethwani, it is seen that during the course of incident the watch of Citizen company and golden chain both worn by him had fallen down. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar, has shown to this Court the copy of the orders dated 14th September, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by which the members of the opposite party have been granted anticipatory bail. It is also reported that one of the co-accused Sushil Dwarkadas Kalyani is also on bail. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar, has relied upon Ashish Pateliya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2003(2) CRIMES 367, wherein the offence was registered under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and there was a case as well as a counter case. In the counter case the accused were released on bail by the trial Court. It has been held that when in cross case the accused have been allowed bail, then accused in other case are also entitled to same relief and entitled to bail. He has also relied upon Amba Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 1995 DGLS (Cri.) Soft 552, wherein taking into 3 consideration the First Information Reports of the case and the cross case, it was held that the members of both the parties should be released on bail since arguable point of private defence would be involved and both the parties should be kept at par. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as above, I am of the view that the present applicant is entitled to bail as prayed for. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. 9. The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 275/2011 registered at Police Station Jaripatka, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 384, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, upon execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount under the following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not enter the locality of the said shop until further orders. (ii) The applicant shall attend the Jaripatka Police Station as and when called upon by the Investigation Officer to do so. (iii) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iv) He shall not leave India without previous 4 permission of the trial Court. It is made clear that the bail applications, if any, filed by other co-accused in the same crime, shall be dealt with as per their own merits depending upon the facts and circumstances applicable to them. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Hamdast granted. JUDGE NSN