Judgment :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.02/2014 registered with Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant by inviting my attention to the material placed on record submitted that a report was lodged at the instance of police personnel on 01.01.2014. On receiving information at the Control Cell, the police squad rushed to the spot namely Football ground of Motibagh area, where a dead body of a male having severe injuries was found floating in a well. The investigating agency in the process of investigation collected the material and the same is concluded in filing of the charge-sheet. The deceased was namely Mayur Jambhulkar. It is alleged that accused no.1 Ravi Patil was carrying grudge against deceased Mayur and was having inimical terms with him. Accordingly, he hatched a plan with other accused and the applicant is alleged to be one of the associates of Ravi Patil. Giving effect to the hatched conspiracy, accused Amol picked up victim Mayur from his house. this applicant was assigned with the job of dropping Amol after completing the job is the allegation against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant by inviting my attention to the material namely the statements recorded by the agency, submits that insofar as the applicant is concerned, the material against the applicant is only in the form of an incident which took place much prior to the alleged murder of the victim i.e. the applicant was in the company of Ravi Patil while threat was extended to deceased and was carrying Sword. Learned counsel further submits that the other material is a theory of the investigating agency namely the applicant namely the applicant was lastly seen in the company of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that considering this material by any angle, the material would be hardly a weak piece of evidence. Learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no material against the applicant of playing any active role either of causing a physical injury to the deceased or the applicant was part of the conspiracy hatched by accused Ravi Patil. Learned counsel submits that considering this material by any angle, the material would be hardly a weak piece of evidence. Learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no material against the applicant of playing any active role either of causing a physical injury to the deceased or the applicant was part of the conspiracy hatched by accused Ravi Patil. Learned counsel invited my attention to the statements of father of the victim initially recorded on 03.01.2014 and subsequently on 05.01.2014. Learned counsel submits that in the initial statement, the father of victim is silent on any reference to the applicant. Learned counsel submits that in that first statement, the father of victim is not even referring to the applicant as an associate of Ravi Patil at any point of time. Learned counsel submits that in the second statement, the father of victim gives a descriptive essay like version alleging that on one occasion i.e. on 17.11.2013 on account of earlier quarrel while Mayur was distributing water in some religious function, Ravi Patil picked up quarrel with Mayur. At that time, the applicant was standing there and was armed with Sword. Learned counsel submits that then the father of victim states that on 27.11.2013, Amol came to their house and called Mayur. Mayur left the house along with Amol. The applicant followed them. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even at that point of time, the father of victim in clear words stated that he was under an impression that his son was going to the place where his mother was residing. Thus, even at that point of time father of victim was not expressing any apprehension against the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel thus submits that taking the aforesaid material as it is, the material falls too short to connect the applicant with the commission of any serious offence, least to say an offence of commission of murder. learned counsel for the applicant submits that as there is no allegation that the applicant used any weapon or actively participated in the crime, there is no possibility of recovery of weapon at the instance of the applicant. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is behind the bars for more than a year. The applicant is engaged in private occupation and earns his livelihood. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is behind the bars for more than a year. The applicant is engaged in private occupation and earns his livelihood. He submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period and there is no chance that the prosecution agency with such type of evidence would establish its case against the present applicant. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposes the application. Learned APP submits that apart from the material in the form of statement of father of deceased wherein there is a reference that the applicant left the house following the deceased and other accused Amol, there are certain call details which show that the applicant was in touch with the other accused Ravi Patil. Learned APP also submits that the applicant was having criminal antecedents discrediting him. 6. Even assuming the material as referred by the learned APP in the form of certain call detail reports, in my opinion, learned counsel for the applicant has made out a case. Perusal of the reply filed by the State shows that certain offences were registered against the applicant, ranging from year 2001 to 2005. Learned counsel for the applicant was justified in submitting that after 2005 till recent past, there is nothing on record that the applicant was involved in any offence and mere because of certain offences, which were registered against the applicant prior to 9-10 years, the liberty of the applicant cannot be curtained. The material against the applicant is revolving around the last seen theory only as reflected in the statement of father of the victim. The applicant is behind the bars for more than a year. The investigation is concluded in filing of the charge-sheet. 7. In view of above discussion, the learned counsel for the applicant has made out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail. In the result, the criminal application is allowed. 8. The applicant is behind the bars for more than a year. The investigation is concluded in filing of the charge-sheet. 7. In view of above discussion, the learned counsel for the applicant has made out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail. In the result, the criminal application is allowed. 8. The applicant be released on bail in Crime No.02/2014 registered with Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, on his executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one solvent surety in like amount on following conditions : [a] The applicant shall attend Panchpaoli police station on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon till commencement of the trial and thereafter, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and co-operate the investigation agency. [b] The applicant should maintain a diary of his attendance duly countersigned by the Investigating Officer/P.S.O. [c] The applicant shall inform the address of his residence and contact number to the police station. [d] He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence. [e] The applicant should not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without its prior permission. In case of breach of the conditions, the prosecution agency to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to state that the observations of this Court in said order are for considering the application for bail and the learned Session Judge may not be influenced by these observations while conducting the trial.