1 APPLN 5262 OF 2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5262 OF 2010. Anil Ramchandra Pawar .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Shounak Mehta, for the Applicant. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4332 OF 2010. Vinod Maruti Jadhav .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Jaydeep Mane, for the Applicant. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. P.G. Sarda for the original complainant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 8th December, 2010 P.C. 1. In these two applications, applicants have been chargesheeted for murder of one Vinayak Kamble and causing injuries to Lakhan, in an incident dated 4th April, 2010. It is the 2 APPLN 5262 OF 2010.sxw case of prosecution that Sandip Pawar, Rama Kale, Vinod Jadhav and 8 others accosted the deceased and the first informant Lakhan and thereafter beat them up. Vinayak Kamble died as a result of injuries sustained by him. The notes of postmortem disclose that the victim had as many as 30 surface wounds, out of which there are at least four stab wounds, one incise wound and others are contusion. There were also fractures on tibia fibula on the left and right side. The names of applicant in the two applications were not mentioned in the F.I.R. In the statement of first informant recorded on the same day, he had named applicant Vinod in Criminal Application No.4332 of 2010, as armed with stick and had hit the victim with stick. He also named Anil Pawar as armed with Gupti. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant Vinod Jadhav, has serious objection for relying on this statement because Lakhan was not certified by Medical Officer as fit to make statement. All these aspects would have to be dealt with by the trial Court at the trial. Considering the nature of injuries which have been sustained by Lakhan, can be seen from the Medico-legal certificate, who had 10 contusions and one abrasion at various regions of the body. The patient was admitted in the hospital from 4.4.2010 to 6.4.2010, the question whether he was fit to make statement or not would have to be gone into by the trial Court. 3. Since the applicant Vinod Jadhav, is alleged to 3 APPLN 5262 OF 2010.sxw participated in the assault with a stick, and deceased had contusions on his person he may be said to have contributed to causing injuries leading to death of victim. All these aspects would have to be looked into by the trial Court. Therefore, applicant Vinod Jadhav is not entitled to bail. His application, is therefore, rejected. 4. As far as Anil Pawar is concerned, first informant categorically stated inhis supplementary statement after Anil’s arrest that Anil had hit Vinayak Kamble with fists and kicks only. In view of this the applicant Anil Pawar’s being in jail pending trial may not be necessary. The applicant Anil Pawar, arrested in CR No.50 of 2010 registered at Pandharpur Town Poolice Station, be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs. 25,000/-, on the condition that the applicant Anil Pawar shall report at the police station concerned on every alternate Sunday of the month between 10.00 a.m., to 1.00 p.m, for first six months and thereafter on first Sunday of the month till the trial is over. 5. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)