..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85 OF 2008 Sunil Uttam Thorat. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-orig.accused No.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant-orig. accused No.1 has been convicted under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years. The applicant is now seeking bail. 3. The injured witness PW-4 Pradeep has stated that the applicant came along with other accused. The applicant took out satoor and he gave blows with the said weapon on his head. PW-4 Pradeep ..(2).. has also stated that the applicant gave a blow on his right palm. 4. The medical evidence shows that there were 8 to 10 injuries on the skull as well as there was fracture of the skull. 5. Mr.Tapkir the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the witnesses have not identified the weapons; and that there is contradiction in respect of motive to commit the offence. However looking to the evidence of the eye witnesses, including the injured witness himself, who have attributed role of assault by dangerous weapons and the medical evidence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 6. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)