2012appln1859.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1859 OF 2010. Mura @ Jawle Masu Joi and ors. ..vs.. State of Mah. through P.S.O.P.S.Etapali,Distt.Chandrapur. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.R.R.Vyas, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.S.M.Bhagde, APP for the State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 20 th December, 2010. Heard Mr.Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Bhagde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. By the present application, the applicants are seeking their released on bail. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that only on the suspicion the applicants are falsely involved in the present crime. They are agriculturists. He further submits that even the F.I.R. does not mention about the presence of the applicants or any act is attributed to them. Per contra, learned counsel Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the application. Reply is filed on record. Material as collected by the Investigating Agency are produced for my perusal. Learned APP by inviting my attention to the statements of the witnesses submitted that these witnesses namely; Lula, Satyu and Lula have stated that the applicants were present on the spot and they have actively 2012appln1859.10.odt 2 participated in the incident. Applicants Mura and Sattu were having sticks and they used those sticks in the assault. The applicants namely; Nansu and Ranu were carrying weapon- gun. All these applicants were instigating the other accused saying not to leave Raju. Learned APP submits that at this stage there is strong material against the applicants and their release would result in hampering the trial and an apprehension is also expressed by the learned A.P.P. that the applicants may pressurize the prosecution witnesses. On perusal of the material and in view of the submissions of the learned A.P.P., I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material against these applicants that they are not deserved any protection at the hands of this court and they are not entitled to be released on bail. The application is rejected. Mr.Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the applicants were not produced before the Magistrate on certain dates. At present, I am not in a position to comment on this aspect, as there is no material to show that what were the reasons for not producing the applicants before the learned Magistrate. Mr.Vyas seeks liberty to take appropriate proceedings in case there is a delay in commencement of the trial. Liberty granted. JUDGE chute