2710appln1599.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1599 of 2010. (Praveen Madhavrao Thute ..vs.. State of Mah. through PSO, P.S.Ajni, Nagpur.) ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. J.M.Shamkumar Adv. h/f Mr.D.C.Chahande Adv for the applicant. Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 27 th October, 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. A report was lodged against the present applicant and other persons vide Crime No.223 of 2010, under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Ajni. 3. It is stated in the report that the applicant and other accused persons attended the Restaurant/Bar of the complainant. They had dinner and consumed the liquor there. Thereafter, the applicant and other accused persons started quarrel with the complainant and assaulted the complainant. 4. Reply is filed by the State. It is stated in the reply that in the investigation carried so far, the statements of the witnesses are recorded. In the statements it is specifically stated about the presence and role played by the applicant. The applicant used weapon – sword and victim was seriously injured. The victim was immediately shifted to Orange City Hospital for treatment. It is further stated in the reply that the 2710appln1599.10.odt 2 applicant is facing criminal antecedent at his credit and apprehension is expressed that if the applicant is released on bail he would not be available for Investigating Agency, which may cause hampering in the trial. 5. In view of the record collected by the Investigating Agency so far, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient material against the applicant. The apprehension expressed by the Investigating Agency is justified. Therefore, this is not the fit case to release the applicant on bail. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE chute