1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1585 OF 2011 Shirish Pandurang Lavate ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Dani i/by Kishor Patil, advs. for the Applicant. Smt. P.P.Shinde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 20th December, 2011 PC : 1 The applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime no.25 of 2011 registered with Upnagar Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148 r/w 149 IPC and under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act. 2 Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 3.2.2011 at about 10 p.m., the deceased Sandip was told on mobile by the accused Vinayak that he and his companions would be coming to beat him and within a short time, Vinayak and his companions Krishna Lavate, Shirish Lavate, Bobby Gaikwad and Sharad Barve came there. While Vinayak was armed with sword, Shirish and Krishna Lavate were having iron rods. Other two accused persons were armed with sticks. As soon as these persons came 2 there, Vinayak began to assault deceased Sandip with sword and his companions assaulted him with iron rods and sticks. After he collapsed on the ground, culprits escaped on their motocycles. Police headquarters were informed about the incident and thereafter, the said Sandip was taken into the private hospital where he was given some treatment and within a few hours, he died. Initially F.I.R. was lodged by Ranjana Bhalerao, who is mother of the deceased. She was knowing only the accused persons namely, Vinayak, Shirish and Krishna Lavate and was not knowing names of the other two accused persons and accordingly, she had stated in the F.I.R. On 4.2.2011, her supplementary statement was recorded and she informed the police that after lodging the F.I.R., she had asked Sandip about the other two assailants and he had disclosed names of Bobby Gaikwad and Sharad Barve. Her second supplementary statement was recorded on 6.6.2011. F.I.R. and the two supplementary statements are consistent. Name of the present applicant Shirish was disclosed in the F.I.R. as well as in the supplementary statement. It was revealed that he had assaulted with iron rod. As per the medical report from Jairam hospital where he was first taken, he had suffered several stab wounds on abdomen, chest, right palm, forearm. He had expired at 5.20 a.m. on 4.2.2011 i.e., within a few hours after he was admitted in the hospital. P.M. Report reveals that there were number of sutured wounds on different parts of the body as well as 3 contused lacerated wounds. Death had occurred due to hemorrhagic shock with injuries to vital organs and due to polytrauma. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that Vinayak alone was armed with sword and most of the injuries were caused with the sword and not by other weapons. Taking into consideration the F.I.R. and the supplementary statements, it becomes clear that five persons came prepared to assault. Before they came to the spot of the incident, Vinayak had informed the deceased Sandip on mobile phone that because of the previous quarrel, he and his companions were coming to assault him and all of them came armed with different weapons, assaulted him and as a result , he died. Therefore, prima-facie, there appears common intention and common object. The learned APP also pointed out that before this case, number of criminal cases were registered against the present applicant. Excluding cases under the Bombay Police act and preventive actions, as per the police report, at-least nine other cases were registered against him under different sections like 302, 120-B, 323, 324, 325, 342, 363, 395, 504, 506, 143, 147, etc. IPC. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in which this incident occurred as well as the criminal record of the present applicant, it would be unsafe to grant bail to him. 4 Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)