Dadarao @ Rahul Jyotiram Gambhire v. The State Of Maharashtra

-:(1):- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Court's or Judge's orders.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 249 OF 2015 DADARAO @ RAHUL JYOTIRAM GAMBHIRE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gundre Suraj V APP for Respondent: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande.

*** CORAM: T. V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED: 17th FEBRUARY, 2015.

PER COURT:

1.

This application is filed for bail. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the papers of investigation. 2.

The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Vasant Jadhav. The incident in question took place on 30th November, 2014 after 1.45 p.m. near shop of the complainant. According to him, when he was closing sutters of the shop two young boys aged 22 ti 25 years came on motorcycle. They were making some inquiry and after that one of the boy held him and other boy picked out knife from his clothes and gave 3 to 4 blows of knife on his chest and abdomen. He shouted. When the others rushed to the spot

-:(2):- to help him, these boys ran away.

3.

According to him, the body, who was comparatively short, held him and other boy gave blows. During T. I. parade, he identified the present Applicant. The other accused is said to be juvenile and knife is recovered from the other accused.

4.

It appears that there was motive to Pratik. Present Applicant had no motive but he was with the main accused Pratik. Applicant has been behind bars since 3rd December, 2014. In view of the nature of material collected as against the applicant, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep the applicant behind bars till decision of the case. 5.

In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant is to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount. 6.

He is not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He is not to commit similar offence. He is not to go to the vicinity where the complainant is residing and doing doing business.

[T. V. NALAWADE, J.] Dt.17/02/2015 ans/249