1 Cri.A.4838.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4838 OF 2011 Deepak Digambar Surwade R/o Sagar Park Khadka Road, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.R.V.Gore., Advocate for Applicant. Shri.B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. ... CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. The Applicant is charged under section 302,307 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR No. 13 of 2011 was filed at the instance of Sushilabai, mother of Dwarkadas since deceased. Said Sushilabai narrates that when she learnt that said deceased Dwarkadas has been assaulted by his brother in law, she went to the place where the said Dwarkadas was lying near Sona Complex. Dwardadas narrated to her that 2 Cri.A.4838.11 he was assaulted by the present applicant and co-accused Mukunda with iron pipe. Same statement is made rendered by one Rohidas, who is eye witness. Maya wife of deceased Dwarkadas rendered the statement that there is dialogue between her and the applicant and that she learnt from the said applicant that she is not going to be troubled by Dwarkadas. 3. Post mortem report clearly shows that the deceased suffered as many as (11) injuries. Injuries mentioned in the column No. 17 and 19 are inconsonance with allegations against applicant namely giving blows by hard and blunt substance. 11 injuries suffered by the victim clearly go to show the impact with which pipe was used to assault the deceased. The death is on account of “Cardiorespiratory failure due to shock due to intracranial haemorrage and poly truma”. All this record clearly points in direction of the present applicant and links him with crime which is registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Advocate Mr.Gore appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody for last about ten months and he being an young person aged about 27 years, lenient view be taken and he be released on bail. 3 Cri.A.4838.11 5. Learned APP opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and contends that clearcut case is made out against the present applicant and the applicant should be be released on bail as there is every likelihood that he would tamper the witnesses and would not make himself available. I have already indicated that nature of the overtact on the part of applicant. At the instance of applicant there is recovery of iron bar with which he assaulted the victim. The allegations against the present applicant undoubtedly are serious. The applicant chose to assault his brother in law mercilessly and that resulted in his death. In my view, the present application is required to be rejected. Hence, the application is rejected. Sd/- [ R.Y.GANOO, J. ] MTK