{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3789 OF 2009 Javed Khan s/o Azam Khan Age-26 years, Occ-Labour R/o Kanhaiya Nagar, Jalna APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 12 th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.157/2009 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna for an offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Papers of investigation are also placed at the time of submissions advanced across the bar. {2} 3. Papers of investigation disclose that the alleged incident occurred in a liquor shop on 22.06.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. As per the disclosure of statement of facts in the complaint, it appears that the present applicant along with 5 others, visited the shop of the complainant to consume beer and after consuming the beer they were leaving the shop without paying the bill and hence they were accosted by the watchman and during the scuffle the other co-accused caught hold the watchman and the applicant gave a blow of a knife on the left side of the chest near the left nipple, which resulted into sustaining serious injury to the watchman. Thereafter, the victim was taken to the hospital, where he was declared to be dead. 4. The applicant has prayed to release him on bail mainly on three grounds, viz, now the investigation is over and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant; the co-accused are already released on bail and except a single blow at the hands of the applicant, as per the version of the eye witness, there is no other overtact attributed to the applicant and lastly that the incident has taken place suddenly over the altercation on account of non payment of bill. In the premise, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the present case may not be covered directly u/s 300 of the Indian Penal Code, however at the most it can be covered u/s 304 part I of the Indian Penal Code. {3} 5. The application is strongly opposed by the learned APP. 6. At this juncture it is to be made clear that though the co-accused are released on bail, yet the case of the applicant cannot be treated at par with the co-accused because the overtact on the part of the applicant, as alleged in the FIR, clearly shows that the blow of knife was given by the applicant which has resulted into the death of the victim. Secondly, considering the nature of injuries mentioned in column No.17 of the Postmortem notes in relation to the internal injuries as mentioned in column No.21 that due to blow by sharp cut to the left lung resulting into rupture as well as injury to the heart and in the column of cause of death it is mentioned that death of the victim has caused due to the attack, it can be inferred that the blow was severe to cause death. Considering the fact that if the accused can give a knife blow in the broad day light in a liquor shop and if he is allowed to go scot free, then there is no guarantee that he may not tamper with the prosecution witness. Though it is urged that the applicant may be released on bail by imposing a condition not to enter the village yet use of outside force cannot be ruled out. In the premise, no case is made out to release the applicant on bail. Application, which is sans merits, is rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3789-09