1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5573 OF 2010 Shafikur Raheman Amirulla Khan @ Guddu ...Applicant. v. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Neville D. Deboo i/by Abhay Bhoir, advs. for the Applicant. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : DECEMBER 21, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that on 21.7.2010 at about 11.30 p.m. injured Rajesh Kamble was chit-chating with his friends near a mosque at Govandi in Mumbai. At that time four persons namely Mehtab, Rijju, Saddam and the present applicant known as Guddu came there with swords, chopper, etc. Accused Mehtab asked Rajesh whether he wanted to be boss of that area and he also stated that they would kill him. Immediately all the four accused persons began to assault him with the weapons in their hands. Accused Mehtab gave blows with sword on the face and head. Saddam gave blows with sword on head and hand. Rijju gave blows with chopper on back, shoulder and neck and the 2 present applicant assaulted with chopper on left hand and left leg of the injured Rajesh Kamble. Rajesh Kamble suffered several injuries on his body and on his report, crime no.255 of 2010 came to be registered under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The present applicant, who claims to be student and aged about 19 years has filed this application for bail. 3 Medical certificate of the injured Rajesh kamble reveals that he had suffered in all 8 incised wounds on different parts of the body including skull, face, on the back side of the neck, arms, left leg. From the injuries caused on different parts of the body particularly head and neck indicate that intention of the culprits was to cause injuries which were likely to cause death of the person. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that role attributed to the present applicant was only about the assault on the leg and the arm and that he had not given any blow on any vital part of the body and therefore case under section 307 is not made out against him. It is difficult to accept this contention particularly when four persons came together armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the person on different parts of the body. It prima-facie shows that they shared the common intention. The learned counsel contends that applicant is a young boy aged about 19 years and was a student. No document is produced to show that as to where and in 3 what standard, he was taking education. Merely because he happens to be 19 years old can not be a ground to grant bail to him. If leniency is shown in respect of grant of bail in such cases there is every possibility that applicant may be emboldened to repeat such offences. There is every possibility that he may also tamper with prosecution evidence. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail. 4 The learned counsel relied upon the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in Imran Khan v/s. State of Rajasthan 1994 Cri.L.J. 2 wherein Rajasthan High Court granted bail to the accused mainly on the ground that injured himself was notorious criminal of the locality and large number of cases including offences of dacoity were registered against him. The learned counsel contends that against Rajesh Kamble also there were three case registered during the year 2008-09. Out of them two were under Section 392 of the I.P.C. This information was not available when his application was heard by the Sessions Court and now he has collected this information under Right to Information Act. It is not the case of the applicant that said Rajesh Kamble was Gunda of the locality and he was harassing the people and out of that some quarrel had taken place resulting in injuries to him. In the present matter, prima-facie it appears that applicant assaulted said Rajesh 4 Kamble to maintain their superiority in the field of crime. Therefore, merely because said Rajesh Kamble is also criminal and certain cases are registered against him, the present applicant can not be granted bail. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)