Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1103 of 2008 Akhalak Allabaksh Dina ...Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr. Counsel i/by V.V.Purwant for the Applicant Ms.M.H.Mhatre-APP for the Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J : V.C.DAGA, J : V.C.DAGA, J 11th 11th 11th June, 2008 June, 2008 June, 2008 P.C. . Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant and Learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No. 268/2007 registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur. 3. This application is moved after having suffered adverse order dated 14-3-2008 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, observing as under: "May be no other witness named Aklak Dina, but they did name Babar Salar, Baba Salar, Atik Shaikh, Atik Bagwan and referred to other persons as accomplices 2 in the crime. Fact remains that the applicant/accused Aklak Dina was one of those persons, who had converged towards the car of the victim and thereafter ran away from the said place. The prosecution is not expected to show any overt act on the part of every individual shown to be member of unlawful assembly. Questions raised, therefore, need not be answered at this stage while appreciating material placed for offering prima facie view of the crime in question. Abdul Gaful Ismil Naikwadi also named applicant/accused Atul as one of the assailant running away from the said place. As regards Mustafa Sayyad, the boxer motor cycle was discovered following the statement made by him that he had used motor cycle while running away from the place of offence. Reference to the use of motor cycle made by the assailants is in the statement of witnesses. Though the material against him is feeble, one cannot necessarily come to the conclusion that the applicant/accused Mustafa is innocent." 4. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that merely on the basis of the statement of Abdul Gaful Ismil, no specific role of the present applicant could be noticed. Therefore, he submits that applicant would be entitled for bail. 5. The prayer for bail is opposed by the Learned APP contending that there was a collusion by the present applicant alongwith others which is clear from the statement of Abdul Ismil. This is not a fit case for grant of bail. 6. Having heard both the sides, and having seen the statement of Abdul Gaful Ismil, there is material 3 available on record to connect the present applicant with the offence alleged. The observation of the Court below cannot be faulted. No case is made out to take contrary view. The application is, therefore, rejected. 7. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)