jpc ba1174-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1174 OF 2011 Rajesh @ Raju Vasant Marne... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. M. S. Mohite, for the applicant Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 12th August, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Mohite, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP for the State. 2. I have gone through the First Information Report and the other annexures to the Bail application. 3. The applicant has been named as one of the assailants in the First Information Report. Specific and an active role has been attributed to him. In the statements of the persons who are supposed to be the eye witnesses also, the applicant has been named as one of the assailants with a specific role. The weapons allegedly used in the assault have also been recovered at the instance of the applicant. Thus, going by the first information report and the statements recorded jpc ba1174-11.sxw 2 during the investigation, their exists a strong prima facie case against the applicant. 4. The contention advanced by Mr. Mohite, the learned advocate for the applicant, however, is that there are suspicious circumstances which are sufficient to doubt the versions in the first information report and in the statements of the eye witnesses. He submitted that the first informant himself has, later on, filed an affidavit to the effect that the names of the applicant and other assailants have been wrongly mentioned in the F.I.R., which was, allegedly, done by him under pressure from the brother of the deceased. Mr. Mohite also pointed out that the statements of the eye witnesses have been recorded after about three days from the incident, for no apparent reason for the delay. He also submitted that even these eye witnesses have subsequently filed affidavits to the effect that the version appearing in their statements recorded by the police, is not true. Mr. Mohite also submitted that there is material to indicate that the applicant was at Daund, (which is about 100 kms away from the place where the incident of assault took place), on the date of incident i.e. on 14th August, 2011. Mr. Mohite, therefore, urged that considering these factors and the fact that there are no antecedents, coupled with the fact that some other accused have been released on bail, a sympathetic jpc ba1174-11.sxw 3 view of the matter may be taken for release of the applicant on bail. 5. I find that the contentions advanced are basically regarding the aspect of judging the veracity of the versions put forth by the witnesses, as appearing from the statements found in the charge-sheet, on the basis of certain statements made by the same witnesses subsequently. It would be hazardous to discard the version in the statements recorded by the police on the basis of a claim made by the persons subsequently, that their statements have not been correctly recorded. This factor would necessarily be needed to be decided during the trial. 6. Considering the brutality of the attack on the deceased, I do not think it proper to release the applicant on bail. 7. The application is rejected. 8. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it as early as possible. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)