( 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.1051 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1051 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1051 OF 2008 Deepak Mahadev Waghmode .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Mahesh B.Zanwar for the applicant. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 6th June, 2008. DATED : 6th June, 2008. DATED : 6th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Mr.Mahesh Zanwar for the applicant. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. 2. The applicant is arrested in C.R.No.5 of 2007 of Baramati police station in a charge under Section 302 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in regard to an incident which is said to have taken place on 16.1.2007. The learned Advocate for the applicant had annexed statements of three eye witnesses, namely, Mr.Ganesh Gugutrao Sul, Mr.Vasant Appasaheb Waghmode and Mrs.Rameshwari Tambhau Waghmode and the Post Mortem report. A perusal of the record goes to show that Mr.Ganesh Sul and Mrs.Rameshwari Waghmode have stated that the present applicant assaulted Achyut Waghmode with the sword on his head. The said Achyut Waghmode died in the course of occurrence which took place on 16.1.2007 in the morning at about 11.30. The F.I.R. goes to show that the assaulting party, ( 2 ) namely, Shashikant Waghmode, Mahadev Waghmode, Hemant Waghmode, Vaibhav Waghmode, Jitendra Waghmode and the present applicant Deepak Waghmode had approached the victim party and the applicant was holding a sword and other persons were holding sticks. The dispute arose on the question of certain lands and that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted Achyut Waghmode with sword on his forehead. The post mortem report at Item No.19 and 20 go to indicate that incise wound is caused on the frontal region of the head of the Achyut and there is an intracranial haemorrhage noticed and the final cause of death is reported as death due to intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury. This will clearly go to show that there is a nexus between the sword blow and the death of Achyut. The argument advanced by the learned Advocate Mr.Zanwar that the facts of the case did not disclose offence under Section 302 cannot be accepted. In view of the direct material appearing against the applicant, namely, overact of assaulting by sword and the final cause of the death, it is required to be noticed that the applicant was carrying a sword on his person when he approached the venue of the occurrence and that adds to the situation which is against the present applicant. The applicant is aged about 27 years and that is not a factor to grant the bail. It is true that other persons like Shashikant Waghmode, Mahadev ( 3 ) Waghmode, Hemant Waghmode, Vaibhav Waghmode had been granted bail. It appears that they were granted bail primarily because they are alleged to have assaulted Achyut and others with stick. The weapon used by the applicant is a sword. Medical evidence is in consonance with the allegations against the applicant which are of serious nature. He had approached the venue of the operation with a sword at his person. The argument advanced by the learned Advocate Mr.Zanwar that the facts of the case did not disclose offence under Section 302 cannot be accepted. 3. After having considered the relevant aspects for the purposes of determining whether the bail should be granted or not, I am inclined to observe that the allegations against the present applicant are of serious nature. He had attended to the matter with premeditation otherwise he would not have carried sword with him and the occurrence is of January, 2007. Parties know each other. There is every likelihood of tampering the witnesses. It is true that Vasant Waghmode is alleged to have attributed the role to the present applicant as handling away the stick. If two witnesses when stated that the applicant was holding a sword and gave a sword blow, it is really surprising as to how the third witness makes a mention of the stick in his statement being the eye witness. This ( 4 ) will have to go to be treated as a mistake inscribed in the statement. 4. In my view, no case for grant of bail is made out. The application is required to be rejected. Hence the order :- a) Application for bail is rejected. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)