[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1918 OF 2007 Dipak Arun Shinde ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Prashant Hagare & Mr.Tushar Sonawane Advocate for applicant Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 28, 2007 DATE : JUNE 28, 2007 DATE : JUNE 28, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.110 of 2006 of City Police Station Baramati. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. One Abhijeet Bhosale died due to injuries sustained in the present incident and four others were injured i.e. complainant Bharat, Vaibhav, Vikas and Sushil. [-2-] 4. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that complainant has not mentioned the name of the present applicant. However, it is seen that other eye witnesses have stated about not only the presence of the applicant but they have also stated that he was armed with stick. In fact, injured Sushil has stated that the applicant was armed with stick and he gave blows with said stick on the head of Vikas, due to which, Vikas fell down on the road. This witness has stated that thereafter, all the persons who had gathered there including the applicant, assaulted Vikas, Vaibhav, Abhijeet (deceased) and the complainant Bharat (father of Vaibhav). Injury Certificate of Vikas clearly shows that he sustained four injuries, one of them was C.L.W. over occipital region 5 x 2 x 1 cm. Vikas had also sustained fracture to the right clavicle. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is serious contradiction in the evidence of eye witnesses and hence, these contradictions show that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court [-3-] in the case of Rohidas Gangaram Jadhav Vs. State Rohidas Gangaram Jadhav Vs. State Rohidas Gangaram Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) 573 of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) 573 of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) 573, wherein it is observed that "whether there is any inconsistency in the two sets of evidence, one incriminating the applicant and the other indicates his absence at the spot, in such case, the applicant deserves to be granted bail." The said case is based on dying declaration and hence, the reference to the inconsistencies in the two sets of evidence, was relating to two dying declarations. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that as the complainant has not mentioned the presence of the applicant, it shows that the applicant was not present at the spot and he has been falsely implicated by the other eye witnesses. No doubt, the complainant does not mention the name of the applicant, however, looking to the evidence of other witnesses, who have specifically stated the name of the applicant viz., Vaibhav has stated the role played by the applicant in the incident as well as Vikas has stated that the applicant was armed with stick and he has assaulted Vikas on his head and thereafter both these witnesses stated that all the persons had assaulted Abhijeet (deceased), I am not inclined to grant bail to the [-4-] applicant. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nira Radia Vs. Dheeraj Singh and another Nira Radia Vs. Dheeraj Singh and another Nira Radia Vs. Dheeraj Singh and another reported in (2006) 9 SCC 760 reported in (2006) 9 SCC 760 reported in (2006) 9 SCC 760, wherein, it is observed as under: . "Though the Court can make some reference to materials but it cannot make a detailed and in depth analysis of the materials and record findings on their acceptability or otherwise which is essentially a matter for trial." . It may be stated here that the learned advocate for the applicant has raised certain contentions the said contentions had to be dealt with and while dealing with the said contentions, it was necessary to make above observations. However, it is clarified that the trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations in this order while disposing of the trial. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail [-5-] to the applicant. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]