1 901-2779-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2779 OF 2010 Mr. Shabbir B. Memon .. Applicant. Vs. 1. Mr. Sayyed Zahid Gujjar Alam @ Pappan, 2 Majid @ Vicky Gujjar Alam Sayyed 3 State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents. Mr. Shailesh Kantharia, for the Applicant. Ms. Sartaj Shaikh, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. P .P. Shinde, A.P. P. for the Respondent-State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Applicants. Perused the papers. 2 The Applicant is the first informant, who had lodged the complaint on 8th January, 2010 that about 1 & 1/2 month prior to that, somebody on telephone had given threats to him against carrying 2 901-2779-10.sxw on construction business. On 8th January, 2010, at about 10.00 p.m., he left the office by Honda City Car. As soon as the car came out of the compound, he noticed two persons standing near the right side of his car. One of them suddenly fired a round from pistol at him. Both the bullet hits the left side mirror of the car and the mirror was damaged. Applicant stopped his car and came out. Both the assailants ran away. The Applicant also started running in the direction of assailants. Some other persons also chased them and caught one of them. The person, who was caught by the people, was handed over to the police. His name was Mohamed Tarbez Mohamed Ainnuddin. Admittedly nobody was injured in that incident. About 1 month after that, the Applicant made a supplementary statement contending that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had threatened him in a meeting held on 5th December, 2009. Both the parties were interested in slum development and on that basis, the Respondents were also impleaded as accused. The Sessions Court granted bail to the original two accused persons and also Respondents. 3 The Applicant filed this application for cancellation of bail in respect of the Respondents who were impleaded on the basis of supplementary statement dated 8th January, 2010. Admittedly, none of them was present at the scene of offences, not had participated in 3 901-2779-10.sxw firing, nor there was any recovery from them. Even though, according to the Applicant, they had given threats to him on 5th December, 2009, he had not mentioned their names in F.I.R. and had given their names after one month. There appears rivalry between the Applicant on the one hand and the Respondents on the other in respect of construction activities in the slum re-development. 4 Taking into consideration the above circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the bail granted by the Trial Court. Hence, application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)