..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2501 OF 2008 Dinesh Krishna Patil. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Ujwal Aangadsurve, Adv. for applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-89 of 2007 of Dombivali police station. The said case is mainly under Sections 302, 364 of IPC. 3. The complainant has stated that on 3.5.2007 he and deceased Mukund Chaudhary had gone out at night. At 00:45 a.m. their car was obstructed by a Scorpio Car and motorcycle. The present applicant along with 5-6 other accused obstructed them and assaulted them. Thereafter the driver of ..(2).. their car was pushed and one Chagan sat on the driving seat. Then they were taken to the building of Dinesh Patil. Both the complainant and Mukund Choudhary were assaulted with swords, choppers, hockey sticks, wooden sticks etc. Thereafter both of them were locked up in gala No.1 below the said building. Thereafter they heard sound of some persons, hence the complainant knocked on the shutter. At that time the police opened the shutter and rescued them. Mukund died in the incident. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the main role of assault is not attributed to the applicant, but, it is attributed to some of other accused. However, it is seen that the present applicant was present right from the time when the car of the complainant and deceased was obstructed. He has participated in the assault. Thereafter, he was also present when the complainant and the deceased Mukund were taken near the building of Dinesh Patil. He was also present at the time when Mukund and complainant were assaulted. According to the complainant, the applicant has also participated in the assault on ..(3).. both occasions. Even otherwise the material on record clearly shows that the applicant shared the common intention of the other accused persons. In this view of the matter, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)