{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.400 OF 2010 Mahmoodali Kalu Miyadad Makrani APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs. Sushma Savale, Advocate for applicant Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State Mr.Pawan Pawar h/f Mr.S.P.Brahme, Adv. for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18 th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.89/2008 registered with Akkalkuwa police station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 333, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 37 (1) (3) r/w 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP, who is assisted by learned counsel for original complainant. {2} 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Abdul Hakim Abdul Sattar Makrani. It is alleged that while the complainant was proceeding on his motor bike and when he reached in front of a road at Hanuman Temple, the present applicant along with some others, followed him. To save himself, the complainant ran towards the field from where he saw three persons assaulting one Salauddin with deadly weapons. During the investigation certain other statements appear to be recorded. Statement of one Abdul Hamid is also recorded, who corroborates the allegations disclosed in the complaint. In the said incident Sallauddin was injured and Abdulla Abdul died. 4. In connection with this offence, the applicant came to be arrested on 15.10.2008 and sine then he is in jail. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and others on 06.01.2010. 5. According to learned counsel for applicant, there is no iota of evidence against the applicant. This Court is not in agreement with this submission. So far as complainant and eye witness are concerned, they have corroborated the role alleged against the applicant. It has to note that the complainant and the eye witness are not the relatives of either deceased or injured. In the premise, the submission that these persons are interested and their statements are recorded only to implicate the applicant {3} falsely, cannot be accepted. 6. Apart from the papers of investigation in respect of evidence, the sword allegedly used for assault, is recovered at the instance of present applicant. It has also to bear in mind that the PM notes in respect of the deceased, indicate that there are 17 incise wounds on the person of the deceased, which show as to how brutally the deceased was assaulted and that too in a broad day light. In the premise, in view of the statements of eye witness and the complainant, who are not relatives either of the injured or deceased, there is no question of false implication of the applicant. No doubt, since long the applicant is in jail, that itself does not mean that the person, like applicant, who is prima facie involved in a case of murder with deadly weapons, deserves any leniency that too when he is a history sheeter who is also involved in CR No. 53/2008. In the premise, at this stage it cannot be inferred that the applicant is an innocent person. Considering the over all effect and the manner in which the deceased was murdered brutally, there is no guarantee that the applicant would not misuse the liberty. 7. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln400-10 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.726 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.400 OF 2010 Sallauddin Sher Mohammad Makrani APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Pawan Pawar h/f Mr.S.P.Brahme, Adv. for applicant Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1 State Mrs. Sushma Savale, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18 th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant. Issue notice to respondents. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Mrs.Salve accepts for respondent No.2. 2. By this application the applicant has sought for a very limited relief of allowing him to assist the APP in opposing criminal application No.400/2010. As a very limited relief is sought, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "A" & "C" [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln400-10