1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 3011 OF 2009 Deepak S/o Balbirsingh Sauda Versus State of Maharashtra and another *** Mr. S. K. Naikwade, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 8th SEPTEMBER, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant and learned A.P.P. In an offence under section 307 read 34 IPC and 27 (1) of Arms Act, Crime No.39 of 2009, the accused/ applicant seeks pre-arrest bail. 2. The complainant specifically points out that the present accused/ applicant has caught hold the victim complainant inflicting blows and kicks. Ritesh has, with the help of country revolver injured the complainant. The complainant suffered profuse bleeding injury. He was allegedly taken by the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. accused Deepak with Shehjan and others to hospital. 3. Though the counsel contend custodial interrogation is not warranted, however, the nature of allegations reflected in F.I.R., at this stage, does not warrant the pre-arrest bail. The accused has allegedly proved to be a terror for the life of the complainant, naturally the witness will be coerced and under situation of not forthcoming. Application is rejected. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:08/09/2009. ans/3011