1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.79/2011 (Sheikh Anwar Sheikh Shabbir .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for applicant, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for non-applicant. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : MARCH 16, 2011 Heard. The prayer for bail made by the applicant/accused no.2 charge sheeted along with his mother by Police Station, Nandanwan, Nagpur as a result of investigation of Crime No.184/2010 registered for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, allegedly committed in an incident which had occurred on 22.8.2010 at about 11.30 am at Jaibhim Chowk, Padole Nagar, Nagpur has been vehemently objected by the learned APP on the ground of the involvement of applicant for commission of offences for which he is charge sheeted being borne from the statements of four eye witnesses namely Shamrao Gaderiya, Kanchan Naik, Nikhil Rangari and Rakesh Ramteke recorded on the next day of incident 2 and promptly lodged first information report by the brother of the deceased, after receipt of information from a boy, who had been to his house for reporting incident, containing name of the applicant as well as of his brother. It is urged that in addition to the same the weapon of offence i.e. the sword was recovered as a sequel to the statement leading to the discovery made by co-accused Sheikh Akram and blood stained clothes of were seized from both the applicants. It is urged that the manner in which and public place at which the crime was committed and as many as 51 injuries were inflicted upon the deceased reveals that no discretion should be exercised in favour of grant of bail to the applicant. The perusal of the material in the case diary supports the submission of the learned APP about the name and involvement of applicant being borne from the first information report which is promptly lodged and so also from the material in statements of four eye witnesses. The learned counsel for the applicant pressed the prayer for bail on the count of there being no cogent material inspiring the confidence revealing involvement of applicant in the crime. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the material contained in the statement of eye witness Kanchan reveals that he is relative of the deceased and for treatment, he had been to Nagpur and on the relevant day, he had been to the 3 house of deceased and along with him, he had been to Nandanwan Police Station, at which the deceased was required to give attendance. It is further urged that though the said witness has claimed of being to house of the deceased, no such material is revealed in the first information report. It is difficult to give any credence to the said submission considering the matters which are reasonably expected to be found in the first information report primarily lodged for reporting the incident in which the deceased was assaulted and murdered by the assailants. The another submission that other material contained in the statements of other three witnesses to which attention was drawn, considered in proper perspective, reveals that the same are at verbatim identical giving dramatic account of incident witnessed by them. It is urged that the same signifies of said witnesses being got up witnesses. It is urged that though the incident had taken place at Jaibhim Chowk at which various shops are located and/or other passersby passing, charge sheet is not containing the statement of any such witness also supports the submission of the said witness being got up. After prima facie considering the material stated in the statement of the said eye witnesses, it is difficult to accept the submission that on such count, at present stage, the said material can be ignored or no cognizance of the matters from the same could be 4 taken. Needless to add that after prima facie considering all the material in the statements of the said four eye witnesses, the involvement of the applicant in the offences in which he is charge sheeted is borne from the same. In view of the same, it will be difficult to accede with the prayer for bail made and particularly after taking into account the manner in which the deceased was brutally killed at public place. Hence the application is rejected. JUDGE Gulande