1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5083 OF 2009 1.Nikhil Sunil Shinde 2.Sunil Dnyaneshwar Shinde ....Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Shri P.D. Prasad Rao for Applicant Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered vide C.R. No.I-287 of 2009 with Vartak Police Station, Thane. There was some altercation between the Applicants and the deceased. The Applicants were traveling on a motor cycle and deceased and his wife were traveling in a taxi. It is alleged that taxi dashed with the 1 motor cycle and, therefore,the Applicants being annoyed assaulted the deceased who was the owner of the taxi by kick blows and fist blows. 3. Initially, the complaint was registered under sections 325, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Applicants and they were arrested and later on released on bail. The deceased, however, succumbed to the injuries and died and, therefore, the charge under section 302 was also added. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the incident had taken place on a trivial dispute and that the Applicants were released on bail. He submitted that the deceased was given treatment and the deceased died for some unknown reasons after 15 days and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not necessary. He further submitted that the Applicant No.1 is 18 years of age and there is no criminal antecedents against him and there was no intention on the part of the Applicants to commit the murder of the deceased. 5. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Applicants. In my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The Applicants may apply for regular bail. The fact 1 remains that the wife of the deceased had witnessed the said incident and she has stated in her statement that due to assault by the Applicants, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and later on he died. The Application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. (V.M. KANADE J.)