1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2040/2010 (Shamrao Ramrao Illarkar and one .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Advocate for applicants, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for non-applicant. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : JANUARY 20, 2011 Heard. The applicants/accused arrested on 18.11.2010 in connection with Crime No.71/2010 of Janefal Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code, have prayed for bail. The said crime was initially registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 326, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants and their elder brother Subhash upon the first information report lodged by one Vishnu Dabhade, the cousin of Ashok Tulshiram Jadhav, injuried during the incident. The offence was converted to offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code after the 2 victim had succumbed to the death after about 10 days of the occurrence of incident i.e. on 14.11.2010. The learned counsel for the applicants urged that considering the matters stated in the first information report as well as the matters stated in the reply by the prosecution regarding other material collected during investigation does not reveal any specific overt-act committed by the applicants during the assault made by their elder brother Subhash upon the victim. It is urged that even accepting the matters stated in first information report and other material collected by the prosecution, the same reveals that at the most the applicants have held the victim for facilitating the said assault solely made by their brother. It is urged that considering the account of incident as revealed from the said material and no material being collected indicating that the applicants also had motive and/or animosity against the victim to commit murder of the victim, they deserves to be released on bail as they cannot be said to be the principal offender for the crime occurred. All the aforesaid submissions are prima facie inconsonance with the material in the case diary. Even the inquest panchanama placed in the diary does not reveal deceased having suffered more than one injury on head. Considering all said aspect coupled with the fact that the deceased had succumbed to the death after about 10 days, applicants were not armed with weapons, absence of material regarding motive, in the 3 facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion deserves to be exercised in releasing applicants on bail by imposing strict conditions. The applicants are directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.71/2010 of Janefal Police Station upon each of them furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two separate solvent sureties in like amount and subject to the conditions that each of applicant - (i) shall stay outside the village Ooty and shall file an affidavit regarding his place at which he is staying and shall not leave the same without the permission of the trial Court; (ii) shall attend the investigating officer of Janefal Police Station in between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm on every day for first 15 days and, thereafter, on every alternate day for next 15 days and, thereafter, on every Monday until further order, (iii) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation levelled against them so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer; (iv) shall not indulge in any activity of tampering prosecution evidence, (v) shall not commit any offence while on bail. The application stands disposed of. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE Gulande