1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 3047 of 2009 Deepak v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr E.W. Nawab, Adv for applicant Ms S. Wandile, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 7th September 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 47/09 registered with Police Station, Sonegaon, Nagpur under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 37 (1) (a) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Learned counsel for applicant contends that investigation into the crime is over and girl Priyanka is discharged from hospital and is leading normal life. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is permanent resident of Nagpur and he is not habitual offender. He submits that offence under Section 307 IPC is not exclusively punishable with life imprisonment and there are no chances of applicant getting punished at the trial. Learned counsel for applicant pressed into service judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhausaheb v. State of Maharashtra and anr reported in 2001 (3) Crimes 410 (SC). He also relied on Anil v. State of 2 Maharashtra reported in 1995 (2) B.Cr. C. 144 and Masoom v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 (2) B.Cr. C. 556. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed application. She submits that injury report reveals that there was puncture wound on right side of chest and blunt injury, 2x2x2 cm on upper limb of girl Priyanka. She further submits that knife and clothes have been seized from applicant. 4. Regarding the incident, on 21.4.2009 applicant assaulted girl Priyanka by means of knife. Applicant was teaching “Judo-Karate” in the college where girl Priyanka was also taking education. Since his efforts to attract girl Priyanka failed, he started torturing her. There was complaint to that effect by parents of girl in the past. On the date of incident, when girl Priyanka was going to hall in the college to writ examination, she was assaulted by applicant by means of knife and he fled from spot. There are statements of eye witnesses. In the cases cited by learned counsel for applicant, presence of accused was not felt necessary in the custody and, therefore, accused therein were ordered to be released on bail. In the present case, however, looking to the way the accused committed crime, it is not desirable to enlarge him on bail even though it can well be said that offence will not be accelerated to higher count from Section 307 IPC. It is prima facie established that applicant who was teaching “Judo-Karate” in the college concerned, inflicted knife blow on girl Priyanka in broad day- light and was able to run away from the spot. Merely because charge-sheet is filed and the offence under Section 307 IPC is not exclusively punishable with life imprisonment, it would not be desirable to order release of applicant on bail since it is possible that he may influence prosecution witnesses with the aid of muscle power. Applicant is known to the 3 prosecution witnesses. Applicant may also endeavour to create obstacles in the free and fair trial. None of the rulings cited by learned counsel for applicant is applicable in this case since in the matter of bail, facts involved in the individual case are to be evaluated and question as to the grant of bail is required to be considered. In the present case, if released on bail, applicant may repeat the crime. Larger interest of society demands that applicant be not enlarged on bail. Application is accordingly rejected. Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made herein which are made for the purpose of deciding bail application. Judge. hsj