1 CAG-3472.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3472 OF 2010 Bobby @ Karna Rohidas Patole .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Ms J.A. Sarkhot with Ms Megha Rawtu for the Applicant. Ms Geeta P. Mulekar, APP, for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3473 OF 2010 Sunny Rohidas Patole .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Ms J.A. Sarkhot with Ms Megha Rawtu for the Applicant. Ms P.P. Shinde, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: DECEMBER 14, 2010 P.C: 1. These are applications for bail by two young persons who have been arrested over an year ago in an offence of attempt to commit murder. The allegation against the applicants is that the applicants had used swords for inflicting injuries on Bharat Tupsunder. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that 2 CAG-3472.10 though in the FIR similar role had been attributed to one Samya Sayyed but subsequently the first informant withdrew the allegation against Samya Sayyed. Therefore, according to her, the whole FIR is suspicious. Now, this will have to await trial and merely because the allegation against Samya Sayyed has been withdrawn, it would not follow that the two applicants had not participated in the assault on the victims. 2. The learned counsel next submits that the injuries observed on the person of the victims are simple injuries and none of the injured person had been admitted to hospital. None of them has suffered any fracture and therefore, according to her, offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out. First, for the purpose of charging a person with the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, it is not at all necessary to show that there are injuries on the person of the victim. In the present case, there are injuries which are on the parietal and occipital region as far as the victim Bharat Tupsunder is concerned. Secondly, they are inflicted by sword. Therefore, merely because the assault did not lead to any serious injuries, it cannot 3 CAG-3472.10 be held, at this stage, that an offence of attempt to commit murder is ruled out. The learned trial Judge would undoubtedly consider all this while framing charges and when he puts the case on trial. The learned counsel next submitted that one of the applicants was in the employment of one Vidya who has stated that the applicant was at his place of employment at the relevant time, ruling out the applicant s participation in the assault. This, too, would have to await trial and plea of alibi cannot be prejudged at this stage. The applications are rejected. 3. However, considering the fact that the applicants are in jail for over a year, the learned APPs undertake to instruct the APP in- charge of the case to see that the witnesses are kept present in the Court on the dates on which the trial is fixed. The learned trial Judge would also expedite the hearing of the case according to its turn in the cases of under-trial prisoners and dispose of the same, as far as possible, within a period of six months. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)