Cri. Apln. No. 2376/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2376 OF 2011 Laxman Suryabhan Shelke & Anr. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mrs. Sadhana Jadhav, Advocate for applicants. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for State/respondent. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 30th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for bail in Cr. No. 125/2011 registrered with Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar for offences punishable under section 302, 201, 34, etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The APP has made papers of investigation available. Both the sides are heard. 2. It appears that the main accused Pappu alias Dinesh Dnyandev Alkute gave report about the incident and he admitted that he and his colleagues including present applicants had assaulted the deceased as deceased Raju Dinde has picked up a quarrel with them. It was reported Cri. Apln. No. 2376/2011 2 that he used weapon and others were involved in the incident. After advancing arguments and when the Court was about to decide the matter, the advocate for the applicant No. 1 Laxman submitted that she is not pressing the application of applicant No. 1 and so application of applicant No. 1 is disposed of as not pressed. 3. In the FIR, there was name of applicant No. 2 Parshuram given by the main accused to the police. The papers of investigation show that there are many eye witnesses who include Amol Bagade and Dnyaneshwar Warade. The witnesses have stated that in addition to main accused other two accused like Kaka Shelke and Laxman Shelke had used weapon like stone and the stone was hit. The PM report shows that stone was hit on the face and there was fracture of bone of face. There are statements of other witnesses like Deepak Surose and Suresh Dinde. Allegations against applicant No. 2 Parshuram are that he had held the deceased and he had assaulted the deceased by using kick blows and fists. There are allegations that all the assailants had then dragged the dead body and the dead body was thrown near the water stream where garbage was stored. There are such statements against applicant Parshuram also. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that no role is attributed to applicant No. 2. This material is sufficient to make out prima facie case against applicant no. 2 for offence under section 302 of IPC. These persons had given threat to the Cri. Apln. No. 2376/2011 3 eye witnesses that they should not come forward and due to that the witnesses remained away. There is possibility of tampering of the prosecution witnesses and there would be danger to the life of witnesses if applicants are released on bail. So the application stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln2376/11