IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1914 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1914 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1914 OF 2008 Avinash Chandrakant Tekawade. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Naveen Chomal for the applicant. J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 20th June 2008. DATED: 20th June 2008. DATED: 20th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with C.R.No.235/2008 registered with Pimpri Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant has moved this application after having suffered adverse order dated 31st May, 2008 at the hands of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune passed in Criminal Bail M.A. No.1711/2008, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has observed as under: "10. On the other hand, Mr.Hole, A.P.P. submitted that the Applicant is the main brain behind the crime. The seizure of the weapons i.e. sword is yet to be made. The documents produced by the Applicant are fabricated. Serious offences are pending against the Applicant. The question of alibi is not available to the Applicant at this stage especially when specific role has been attributed to him. He has also placed reliance to the ratio laid down by Honourable Bombay High Court in the case between State of Maharashtra V/s. Laxman Kishan Shirashat (1996 Crim. L.J. 1282), wherein it is held that when the Accused is named by the injured eye witness in the F.I.R., was promptly lodged, then in such cases, the plea of alibi could not be sustained, for granting Anticipatory Bail. (11) In our case, on going through the police papers, it is very much clear that the alleged incident was witnessed by some employees of the school as alleged incident took place in the premises of the school during the noon time. It is specifically mentioned regarding the presence of the Applicant. Therefore, relying on this authority, and also the fact that the plea of alibi can be considered at the time of trial, it is not desirable to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Applicant. (12) From the police papers, it is very much clear that the weapon is yet to be recovered, which was alleged to have been used at the time of the crime. The custodial interrogation of the Applicant is very much required considering the nature of offence and the alleged involvement of the Applicant......" 4. Having gone through the papers and having - 3 - heard learned counsel for the applicant, no case is made out to take contrary view than the view taken by the Sessions Judge. The view take is a reasonable and possible view. 5. In the result, application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE