The court may grant bail to an accused based on their medical condition and the similarity of their situation with other co-accused who have been released on bail, while also imposing conditions to address prosecution's concerns.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 3rd August, 2017 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Application No. 1267 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal application of the appellant and declined to grant bail to him.

3. The appellant herein is accused No. 5 in Crime No. 80 of 2014 of MIDC Latur Police Station, Latur, Maharashtra. He was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 354, 376(d)(g), 201, 203, 120-B read with Section 34, IPC.

4. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is aged about 63 years and already suffered three years of incarceration in jail. Apart from that, he is similarly placed with Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6, who have been granted bail long back in the year 2014, whereas he is still languishing in jail. Moreover, he is suffering from CAD with triple vessel disease (LAD and Diagonal) and CABG was advised by the Cardiologist of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad for immediate surgery. He had already five stents in the body and staying in Latur jail, where there is no facility of Bypass surgery. The investigation in this case is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation has very vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He has also submitted that the appellant herein is a very influential person and he may influence the key prosecution witness Vivekanand @ Vicky Sarkale who was planted as a dummy accused on promise of offering a house and a car and thereby he was tried to misguide the police and change the track of investigation into this murder case. Apart from that the appellant absconded for more than a year at the initial time of incident and there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses in the trial. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon giving careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light available material on record, it is expedient for us to not express any opinion at this stage on the merits of the case, particularly in view of the pendency of trial.

8. So far as the prayer of the appellant for bail is concerned, a perusal of the charge sheet indicates that the appellant-accused is similarly placed with all the other accused and they were already released on bail. He is charged with Section 201 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code along with other accused. He is also charged with Section 120(B) and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. In view of the above and taking into consideration the medical reports of the appellant, we are inclined to grant bail to him. But, considering the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I., we thought it fit that the appellant, while on bail, should stay far away from the place of occurrence.

10. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant be released on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court which can impose conditions, if any, as it may deem fit. We direct the appellant to surrender his passport to the trial Court.

11. As suggested by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, during the period of bail, the appellant will stay in Pune, where he can undertake medical treatment. We also direct the appellant to appear before the S.H.O., Chaturshringi Police Station once in a week i.e. on every Saturday, and muster his attendance.

12. Further, the C.B.I. is at liberty to observe the behaviour of the appellant during bail period, and in case it feels that the appellant is indulging in influencing any of the witnesses or causing interference with the investigation, it is open for