1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.396 of 2010 [Ajay Sulchand Lanjewar Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Ashwin Wasnik, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 23rd March, 2010. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Wasnik for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Doifode for respondent and perused the papers  charge-sheet and documents. 2 2. Medical papers indicate following injuries:- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Nature of Size of Situation Type Kind of Age of Remark. No. injury. Injury. over the of weapon. Injury. body. inju- ry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Stab wound. 1.8 On left Simple Sharp & Fresh on cm x side pointed. admission. -- 0.2 anterior cm. chest. 2. Three linear  Over back. Simple Hard & -do- -- abrasion Blunt. on USG thereon. Evidence of penetrating tract of 1.8 deep and 0.2 cm breadth on the left anterior chest wall in sub-cutaneous tissue plane. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Knife having a blade of 9 cms., is described to be a weapon of assault. 4. It is seen that though the injuries are simple, they are on the vital part of the body of injured. 5. Statements of witnesses disclose that had the incident of assault not been hindered by another victim Ranjita, who too suffered injuries due to intervention, the nature of injuries to the main victim which are apparently superficial, but on the vital part, would have led to the threat of life of Prafulla. 3 6. The incident could not cost the life of Prafulla, only because of intervention, and this fact of intervention, which is a cause of the injuries not turning serious, is the factor which weighs against the applicant-accused. 7. The background of the accused, namely that he is in the Para-military Force, serving in the Security Staff at the Airport, by itself does not weigh in the applicant's favour, particularly being a personnel of Armed Force, use of arms was a matter of larger discretion for him from which he has departed and entered the criminality. 8. Learned Adv., for the applicant placed reliance on the reported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare Vs. State of Mah. & another [2001 (3) Crimes 310 (SC)], to support his case. 9. It is seen that in the said reported case as well, Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find fault with the order of High Court rejecting the bail, however, on the ground that the offence was not likely to escalate further and higher, their Lordships found that it was a case worth grant of bail. 10. In the present case, considering that the injuries may not turn worse than those are 4 caused, yet taking into account the fact that had the accused not been hindered, the assault was undoubtedly grave and fatal. The intention and knowledge behind choosing vital sites of body are at this stage eloquent. That the injury of gravity was prevented and that the offence may not escalate in present case is not comparable and is a unique feature of the case at hand. 11. The facts of the case, therefore, do not reduce the gravity of the act. On the other hand, status of the accused and the fact that lest the intervention, the offence would have been graver against the applicant cannot be overlooked. 12. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the latitude as shown in the judgment relied upon by the learned Adv., for the applicant. 13. In these premises, the application does not merit any indulgence. 14. Application for bail is rejected. Judge |Hedau| 5