1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5656 OF 2009 Rama alias Bapu Annappa Shinde ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. . The applicant, who is alleged to have assaulted the victim Arun Gaste with a Sword seeks enlargement on bail on the following grounds. First, the person on whose report an offence was registered was in fact not the first informant, since police had already reached the spot. Secondly, names of miscreants were mentioned by the witnesses i. e. Rama alias Bapu Annappa Shinde, Shivaji Jagannath Kamble, Ravi 2 Irappa Korvi, Rajendra Bapu Patil, Anil Yashwant More and Avinash Ashok Shinde in their supplementary statements. There is nothing to show that these persons had identified the applicant at any Test Identification Parade and lastly, Katyar which was allegedly seized at the instance of the applicant is not shown to have blood stains. As pointed out by the learned APP for the State even if the statement of Kiran Kamble is taken into consideration not as an FIR, it still remains statement of eye witness and can not be excluded from consideration at this stage. All the witnesses had categorically named Rama as assailant and since four to five other persons were involved in the assault, in the supplementary statement, there is mention of the names of all the assailants again and so the name of the applicant has been again repeated. That does not mean that witnesses did not know the applicant and had not named him. Therefore, according to the learned APP, there is no 3 question of applicant's being required to be identified at the Test Identification Parade by the witnesses, who knew him and had named him. In these circumstances, whether Katyar had blood stains or not would become less relevant in the case of the applicant, who had assaulted victim with sharp weapon leading to victim's death. Hence, applicant is not entitled to bail. 2. Criminal Application is rejected. The observations made in this order shall be considered by the trial Court while deciding the application. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)