1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No.1583 of 2008 [Dhamma P. Gharde Vs. State of Mah. ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Manoj Sable, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent-State. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 10th June,2008. 1. Heard. 2. First and foremost contention of learned Advocate Mr. Sable is that all findings recorded by the Sessions Court are in favour of the accused person, as can be seen from last clause of last sentence of paragraph 9 appearing at page 15 of the application paper-book. For ready reference, the portion relied upon by learned Advocate for the applicant is quoted as follows:- “9. .....I am of the view that they are entitled for grant of bail and hence both the applications stands rejected.” 2 3. Emphasis of learned Advocate is on positive observation contained in the said clause that the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. According to learned Advocate Mr. Sable, this, therefore, is a positive conclusion on the part of the learned Judge to have arrived at a conclusion favourable to the accused persons. 4. On consideration of the contents of last sentence of para 15 of order of Sessions Court, it is seen that learned Trial Judge refers to brutality of offence and involvement of the applicant in the beginning of sentence, and at the end rejects application. 5. Had learned Adv., Mr.Sable's submission been true, the sentence, in question, would have ended up with further observation as on what conditions, such as bond, sureties etc., the bail was granted. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Sable is attempting to take benefit of the fact that the word “not”, which probably was there, has escaped in transcribing/typewriting between the words “are” and “entitled”. 7. By way of last submission, learned Advocate Mr. Sable claims parity by relying upon the order releasing two accused persons on bail. 3 8. It is seen from the order that the Sessions Court has specifically recorded that names of those two accused were taken by the witnesses much late. 9. In so far as merits of the case are concerned, this Court finds that the Trial Court has given due consideration to the record. It is seen from paragraph 7 of the order that the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- “7. He proceeded in that direction and he found that Babbu Bhagat [deceased] was being beaten by applicant Dhamma, applicant Guddu, Ankush Bhowte, Santosh Gurav, Prashant Belekar, Arvind and Sonu Buddhan by means of sword, Gupti, Lathi, iron rod. Bablu Buddhan also assaulted deceased by means of iron rod. This witness then brought said Bablu Budddhan by catching hold of his hands. That time assailants named above were saying that 'Bablu to Lekar Kachara Ghar Me Jala Dalte.'....”. 10. On perusal of the statements recorded by the investigating officer, it is seen that statement of Lakhan Warkar has been recorded and the reference thereto in paragraph 13 of order of Sessions Court is correctly done. By reproduction/translation of what this witness has stated, the involvement of the accused in the offence is, thus, positively made out. Prima facie, there is a strong case against the 4 accused persons. 11. In the result, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Application is accordingly rejected. Judge |Hedau|