1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3439 / 2009 [Somnath Ramchandra Tiwari vs. The State of Maharashtra) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R K Tiwai Adv. for applicant Mr S B Ahirkar, APP for respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2010. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in respect of Crime No. 124/2009 reported at Ballarshah Police Station Dist.Chandrapur on 25th May 2009, for offence punishable under sections 302, 32, 323, 137, 148, 149 IPC. 3. The applicant has been arrested as back as on 1st June 2009. It is alleged that he had actually particiapted in the incident and assaulted the deceased Beniprasad Trivedi by means of iron rod on his head. Learne APP has invited my attention to the statements of eye witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. in order to argue that applicant has been referred as Raju Tiwari who was seen along with Bablu Tiwari assaulting the deceased by means of iron rod (tommy) on the vital part of the body i.e. head of the deceased. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended 2 that no identification parade was held during the pendency of ivnestigation in order to fix identity of the applicant as the actual assailant, therefore, applicant ought to be granted benefit of bail. 5. Learned APP went hammer and tong against the submission, on the ground that this defence of the applicant can be considered on merits, at the time of trial but, prima facie, he has been implicated by witnesses who knew the applicant since prior to the incident as Raju Tiwari and, therefore, it was not necessary to hold test identification parade in the course of investigation. Furthermore, it appears that relevant seized article was referred to Chemical analyser for his opinion; whereas the C.A. Report is still awaited. The post-mortem notes in respect of the dead body indicated multiple injuries including on scalp parietal region on vital part i.e. Head; as also depresssed fracture was seen which, according to prima facie opinion, were ante mortem injuries caused on the head and face resulting into death of Beniprasad, the deceased. Under these circusmtances, at this stage, I am not inclined to take a different view of the matter than the view taken by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandrpaur in Misc. Criminal Applicaiton No. 579/2009 dated 11th September,2009. 6. For the reasons afore-stated, Application is rejected. However, the trial Court is expected to hear the 3 sessions case as early as possible. JUDGE sahare