1 Cri-A-4399-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4399 OF 2010 Sujit Mahendra Yadav ... Applicant (Orig. accused) Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent (Orig.complainant) Mrs. Mallika A. Ingale, Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. G.P.Mulekr, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 29th November, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned APP. The Investigating Officer is present. Father of the accused, who had himself lodged a report of the incident, is also present before the Court. 2. The prosecution case is that on 4.2.2010 at about 4.15 a.m., the accused left his house, apparently to attend the nature's call. At about 4.40 a.m., his brother Ajit was screaming and their mother was shouting "Marke Bhag Rahahai, Pakdo Pakdo". At that time, the complainant, i.e. father of the accused saw that two persons wearing half pants were running away. They had entered his house and stabbed his son and wife Lilavati. In that incident, Ajit died. However, 2 Cri-A-4399-10.sxw Lilavati survived. Crime No.38 of 2010 was registered under Sections 302, 307, 452 read with Section 34 of IPC against unknown persons. Later on, the present applicant was arrested by the police on the ground that he had arranged the murder of his mother and brother because they were opposed to his love marriage. It is alleged that sometime before he had left the house, he had contacted another accused Vinod Yadav on his mobile and instructed him. Then he went away from the house and Vinod Yadav entered into the house and stabbed them. According to the prosecution, second person Vinod Yadav may be the accused himself. 3. There is nothing on record that either the complainant or his wife had told the police that they had seen their son Sujit, who is the applicant, running away after the assault. After investigation, police have filed the charge sheet. The Investigating Officer admitted before the Court that he had collected the data of the mobile of the accused from the Service Provider, but there is no record about the call made by the accused to Vinod Yadav shortly before this incident. Then there is recovery of weapon of offence from another accused Vinod, who was the actual assailant. The prosecution relied on the confessional statement of the accused. However, there is no evidence to corroborate the confession. 4. The trial has not commenced. The charge sheet is filed. In view of 3 Cri-A-4399-10.sxw the facts and circumstances, I find that the accused may be granted bail. The accused be released on his executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount with a condition that he shall not misuse the bail and tamper with the prosecution evidence and that he shall not enter within Samta Nagar area, Kandivli and shall also report at Samta Nagar Police Station on every Sunday between 11 a.m. and 12 noon till the completion of the trial. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)