SKT 1 6.appln.3046.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3046 OF 2010 Vijayanand Digamber Shirodkar .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ..... Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam, Advocate for Applicant. Ms.A.S.Pai, APP for the State. ..... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : JULY 8th, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the rival submission at length. On this application preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in the matter of Cr.No. 74/2010 registered with Boriwali Police Station. The offence alleged against the applicant is punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The main defence taken on behalf of the applicant is that on 22nd February 2010 i.e. on the relevant date of the incident, he was at SKT 2 6.appln.3046.10.sxw Kolhapur before the Notary and there he executed certain agreement for sale for purchase of some immovable property from one person. The other argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that in the First Information Report, only the surname-Shirodkar was revealed to the complainant through the co-accused and as such, the present applicant cannot be taken as the said co-accused, associate of other accused persons. 3. So far as the first defence as to aliby is concerned, it is an admitted position that in the application preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this plea was not at all taken. In fact, if such defence would have been truthful and factual position, then, it would have been first and foremost defence taken in the application. However, it is not the case as the learned APP for the State produced copy of the bail application preferred by the applicant before the learned Session Court. Even this Court has gone through the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Court while doubting the said SKT 3 6.appln.3046.10.sxw plea of aliby and at least at this stage, there cannot be a different opinion expressed than that arrived by the Sessions Court. 4. It is also the factual position that there are six cases pending against the present applicant and those are regarding the offences punishable under similar Sections 307, rioting, Section 42 & 43 of the M.R.T.P. & P.U.L.P.Act and offences of extortion and also under Section 387 r.w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This pendency of cases against the applicant weighed much with this Court as also it weighed much with the Sessions Court while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail. 5. Apart from the 1st informant, there are four other witnesses who are giving the statements to the police as to knowing the surname as one Shirodkar, taken by the co-accused during the incident of assault on the complainant. The role assigned to the present applicant is also grave assault in as much as using the iron bar and inflicting severe blows on the head of the SKT 4 6.appln.3046.10.sxw applicant causing fracture injuries. 6. Considering the above, it must be said that the present applicant is not entitled to get any discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail and accordingly present application is disposed of rejected with the following order : O R D E R 1. Criminal Application No. 3046 of 2010 stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)