..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2023 OF 2008 Madan Lalahadur Singh. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Ms.Mallika A. Ingale, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th 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.38 of 2008 of Parksite Police Station. The said case is under Section 302 of IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant assaulted deceased Sudhir with stump. Seven injuries are found on the body of the deceased. The complainant has specifically named the present applicant. There are three eye witnesses to this incident who implicat the applicant. Besides this, there is recovery of ..(2).. blood stained cloths at the instance of the applicant. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the name of applicant is Madan Singh and the witnesses have not named Madan Singh, but, they have stated that one Mohan Singh has assaulted. She submitted that the name of the applicant is not Mohan Singh which shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. In answer to this contention, the learned APP has pointed out the further statement of the complainant wherein she has stated that applicant Madan Singh is known as Mohan Singh hence she has referred to him as Mohan Singh. 5. Thereafter the learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that though recovery of blood stained clothes is shown at the instance of the applicant the said recovery is foisted on the applicant. In support of her contention, she has drawn my attention to the recovery panchanama wherein it is stated that one red T-shirt and one jeans came to be recovered at his instance. She pointed out that at the time of arrest the clothes ..(3).. worn by the applicant came to be seized and the said clothes are the very same clothes which are shown as recovered at the instance of the accused. She has pointed out that in the arrest panchanama also the jeans and red colour T-shirt came to be seized from the applicant. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that the recovery panchanama shows that red colour T-shirt on which GIORGIO ARMANI was written came to be seized. Whereas T-shirt seized at the time of arrest does not bear the name GIORGIO ARMANI. Moreover it is a T-shirt without a colar. Jeans is a common item of clothing. So also red colour T-shirt is not a very uncommon item of clothing. In such case, it cannot be said that the same clothes which were seized at the time of the arrest were foisted on the applicant in the recovery panchnama under Section 27. 6. The learned Advocate for the applicant stated that the complainant had gone home on two occasions i.e. at 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., to inform her husband about the assault by the accused persons on Sudhir. However, the husband of the complainant states that the complainant ..(4).. came home and informed only at 11:00 p.m. She pointed out that the complainant has stated that she saw the applicant and the other accused persons going towards her son to assault him at that time she went home and informed her family members about the incident and she came back. Thereafter again when she saw her son being assaulted by the accused persons, she went home again and informed her husband. The complainant does not state that on both occasions, she informed her husband. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any major discrepancy between the complainant and her husband. 7. Looking to the role attributed to the applicant, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)