1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 932 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2009 (Mohd. Shafique Mohd. Yusuf .v. 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. Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. K.S. Joshi, APP for the respondent. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING ORDEER : 01ST JULY, 2009. DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 03RD JULY, 2009. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. This is an application moved by the applicant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The applicant who is the original accused No. 3 in Sessions Trial No. 90/1997. The applicant was prosecuted along with the other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 333, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by judgment and order dated 21.01.2009, convicted and sentenced this accused. The 2 appeal No. 144 of 2009 is preferred against the said judgment and order by the applicant and the same is admitted by this Court. Shri Abhay Sambre, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution case is based on the interested witnesses. He further submitted that the witnesses are neither consistent nor they are trustworthy and as such the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case. He further submitted that it was a free fight wherein the counter case is registered against the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the medical report does not support the ocular testimony of the witnesses and ultimately prayed that the applicant be released on bail. Smt. K.S. Joshi, the learned APP for the respondent vehemently opposed the application. We have gone through the record. The record shows that the witness namely Aslam Shah deposed that on the date of incident, he was present in the house. His brother along with some police personnel came to the spot. He heard the shouts and immediately came out of his house and found that the applicant who was holding sword along with the other accused persons was assaulting his brother. He rushed to rescue his brother and the accused persons attacked him also. The other witness Abdul Rakhim also deposed that he had seen 3 the applicant with sword in his hand and assaulting Ayub Shah. This witness identified the accused persons in the Court. One more witness Shankar Nimkar who attended the place of occurrence, on receiving the report by Ayub Shah for enquiry along with other police personnel and as such an independent witness deposed about the presence of the applicant holding sword in his hand. The learned Counsel further submitted that Shankar Nimkar has stated that the applicant came on the spot after the incident of assault on Ayub was over and as such no role is attributed to the applicant. We find that Shankar Nimkar has deposed that when he t5ried to apprehend the applicant, the applicant ran away from the spot and in the process, Shankar received injuries to his hand. The record also shows that PW-15 Firozuddin deposed that when Ayub Shah wqas being assaulted, the applicant came on the spot with sword and gave blows to Ayub Shah. In view of the fact that the witnesses deposed about the presence of the applicant, who was holding sword in his hand and participated in the assault, we are unable to agree with the submissions of learned Counsel that there is no material against the applicant. At this stage, we are convinced that there is enough material against the applicant. The record prima facie shows the involvement of the applicant in the offences. 4 The grounds raised by the applicant such as the enmity between the parties, the assessment of the documentary evidence can be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. We see no ground to suspend the sentence and to release the applicant on bail. In the result, Criminal Application No. 932 of 2009 deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.