( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3028 OF 2010 Shankar s/o. Malappa Palnoor (Patil) .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. T.G. Gaikwad h/f. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25.08.2010 P.C. :- 1. By this application, the applicant seeks bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No. 47 of 2010 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Nanded, for offences under sections 307 and 342 read with 34 of the I.P.C. 3. The F.I.R. purports to show that the applicant used ( 2 ) to run a medical shop in the proximity of clinic of the complainant. The complainant is a medical practitioner. The complainant started another medical shop in the premises of the clinic. The applicant and his brother-in-law called the complainant on 12.03.2010 inside the premises of their medical shop, called “Sanket Medical Stores” and suddenly mounted assault on him. The medical practitioner (complainant) raised hue and cry. He was mercilessly beaten up. The applicant and two other accused persons had closed down shutter of the medical shop, had confined the medical practitioner inside the shop and mounted brutal assault on him. When the witnesses entered the shop and police arrived at the spot, the complainant was found lying in pool of blood, after the shutter of the shop was opened by force. 4. Having heard counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. and on going through the investigation papers, it is explicit that the complainant was found to have received multiple injuries. Out of 13 injuries found on the person of the complainant, two injuries were found to be grievous in nature. Having regard to such multiple injuries, noticed on the person of the complainant, when he was subjected to ( 3 ) clinical examination, it appears that murderous assault was mounted on him and the applicant is involved in the crime. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application of the applicant on 17.07.2010. It appears that before learned Sessions Judge, learned advocate for the applicant admitted that there was business rivalry between the applicant and the complainant. So, it is explicit that if the applicant will be released on bail, then life of the complainant may be endangered and there is also possibility that the witnesses would be tampered with during the course of trial. In this view of the matter, the application is rejected. The application is disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/cra3028.10