1 cri-apln-1700-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO.1700 OF 2009 Salim Khurshid Ahmed Shaikh ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr.M.P.S.Tiwari Adv. for Petitioner Smt.S.D.Shinde APP for Respondent-State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : 29th JULY , 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.I-628 of 2007 of Mumbra Police Station. The applicant has been named in the F.I.R. The witnesses have stated that co-accused Sayyed stabbed the deceased Mohesin with Gupti on the chest and the applicant assaulted the deceased with chopper. Besides the first informant, there are other eye witnesses who have implicated the applicant. Deceased Mohesin sustained 19 2 cri-apln-1700-09 injuries in the incident. There is recovery of blood stained chopper at the instance of the applicant. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has also submitted that he has clean record. He has further submitted that the applicant was called to the police station for about eight days prior to his arrest and thereafter, he came to be arrested on 21st December, 2007 and produced before the Court on 29th December, 2007 and he has been in custody since 21st December, 2007. As far as this aspect is concerned, the arrest panchnama shows that the applicant was arrested on 21st July, 2007. The learned APP states that the applicant was produced on the very next day i.e. on 22nd December, 2007 and he came to be remanded to police custody till 29th December, 2007. As observed earlier, the applicant has been arrested on 21st December, 2007. It is for the first time that after a period of almost one and half year, this ground is being raised. No such ground was taken in any of the bail applications before the lower Court or even in the bail application preferred previously before this Court. Moreover, if at all, the applicant had any grievance in relation to his arrest on the very day that he was produced before the Magistrate, he would have expressed his grievance. However, the applicant has not done so. This clearly shows that this ground has been taken belatedly as an after thought. Thus, I 3 cri-apln-1700-09 find no merit in this ground. 4. The name of the applicant figures in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. is lodged by an eye witness. There are other eye witnesses who implicate the applicant. The deceased sustained sixteen injuries in the incident. There is recovery of blood stained chopper at the instance of the applicant. Besides this, the learned APP has stated that the applicant was involved in CR No.96 of 2006 of C.S.T. Railway Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 379 of the IPC. Looking to these facts and number of injuries sustained by the deceased, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application is rejected. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]