{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2429 OF 2010 Shailesh @ Santosh s/o Jalindar Jogdand APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. R.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 12 th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.169/2008 registered with Peth Beed police station in respect of an incident dated 16.10.2008. In the said offence total 7 persons were arrayed as accused out of which the present applicant and one Asaram were absconding for a period of 1 and ½ years. So far as remaining 5 accused are concerned, as charge sheet was filed against all the {2} accused showing the present applicant and Aasaram as absconding, the Sessions case No.22/2009 proceeded against them only. It appears that while trial of Sessions Case No.22/2009 was in progress, the absconding accused were arrested on 17.01.2010, however within mean time major part of the evidence in Sessions Case No.22/2009 was recorded and hence the absconding accused are not tried with the remaining accused. By the judgment and order dated 21.04.2010, other than accused No. 5, all the 4 accused are convicted for an offence punishable u/s 149 r/w 302 and u/s 302 of the IPC along with other offences. 2. During the course of submissions, it is urged that even though the incident had occurred on 16.10.2008 and thereafter complaint was lodged, yet name of the present applicant did not appear in the FIR. However, subsequently, statements of witnesses came to be recorded, who have disclosed the name of the applicant as a person who had attacked the deceased with cookery. According to learned counsel for the applicant, on perusal of the injuries found on the person of the deceased, no external injury was noticed near abdomen in the nature of incise or stab wound {3} and hence, it is urged that the statements of the eye witnesses be discarded and the applicant be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned APP opposed the bail application. 4. Whether the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code in regular investigation to be believed or in their supplementary statements where whether they have improved their statements or source of information disclosed in natural course, would be the subject matter of cross examination. Perusal of the Postmortem notes disclosed that total 9 incise wounds were noticed on the person of the deceased. It is to be noted that the incident of assault occurred in the evening of 16 th October 2008 and the PM was conducted in the afternoon of 17th October 2008. In the premise, if there is any delay in recording the supplementary statements it is to be considered at the initial stage. If there is death by assault in the public place, then the family members or close relatives or associates of the victim would be in mourn and it is not necessary that all of a sudden like an audio or video clips they should reproduce the incident, however {4} they have to recollect, which reflect in the supplementary statements. The nature of injuries found on the person of the deceased clearly establishes that the death caused due to multiple incise wounds with sharp cutting instruments. The probable cause of death is given due to hemorrhagic shock due to injury on the left lung and hemothorex and multiple injuries. The injuries mentioned in column No.17 are corroborated with the corresponding injuries mentioned in column No.20 as there was cut injury over the throat as well as over the left lung. 5. Considering the nature of the injuries which were sustained by the deceased, it appears that the blows might have been given with full force and hence it is clear that the death is caused due to brutal assault. In the premise, the role alleged against the applicant is required to be considered in the light of the fact that he was absconding for a period of 18 months and could be available for trail after his arrest. If the applicant is now released on bail then there is every possibility that he may again abscond and would not face the trial and the trial against the another accused will be further delayed. In the premise, the {5} application deserves to be rejected. 6. Consequently, the application which is devoid of any merit, stands rejected. The applicant is at liberty to pray before the trial court for expeditious hearing of the sessions case. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2429-10