[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2747 OF 2008 Asaitambi & Satta Natrajan Nadar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.R.V.Singh Advocate for Applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 26, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 26, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 26, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in FIR No.138 of 2007 of Sahu Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is mainly under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant along with others assaulted Perumal, Navinkumar and Shivam. Perumal lost his life in the incident. Navinkumar has stated that the present applicant was armed with Koyata and he assaulted Navinkumar along with other accused. The medical certificate of Navinkumar shows the incised wounds on the [-2-] chest. Besides this, there are injuries on the right leg bone deep and another injury on the left thigh which is muscle deep. On seeing the incident, crowd collected. At that time, the present applicant and other accused showed Koyata to the persons in the crowd and threatened them that they would be cut into pieces. On account of this, the persons in the crowd started running away. Thereafter, the co-accused Ganesh said let us go and finish Perumal and Bhuminathan. Accordingly, the accused persons proceeded to the place where Perumal was. Witness Balkrishnan has stated that he saw the present applicant and other accused coming near Perumal. The accused persons were armed with weapons. Balkrishnan has stated that applicant was armed with Koyta at that time. Thereafter some of the accused persons started assaulting Perumal. Perumal sustained six injuries in the incident. Thereafter, injured witness Shivam has stated that present applicant along with others came near him. Shivam has stated that at that time, the applicant was armed with Koyata. At all three places i.e. where Navinkumar was assaulted, Perumal was assaulted and thereafter Shivam was assaulted, it is seen that applicant was [-3-] armed with Koyta. The fact that after Navinkumar was assaulted, the applicant raised Koyata and showed it to the crowd and threatened the witnesses that they would be cut into pieces and thereafter he accompanied the other accused when they were going to finish Perumal and Shivam shows that he shared the common intention of all the other accused to kill Perumal and cause injuries to Shivam. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Kadiravan has been granted bail and the case of the applicant is similar to that of Kadiravan. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that Kadiravan was merely present at all the three places and he has not assaulted any one whereas the present applicant had assaulted Navinkumar with koyata. Injuries sustained by Navinkumar are reflected above. Moreover, after Navinkumar was assaulted, the present applicant along with co-accused Mota Murugan and Jayganesh showed the deadly weapons in their hands to the crowd which had gathered and threatened them that they would be cut into pieces, however, no such role of assault on Navinkumar or [-4-] threatening the persons in the crowd, has been attributed to co-accused Kadiravan. Moreover, there was no recovery at the instance of co-accused- Kadiravan, however, there is recovery of blood stained koyata at the instance of the applicant. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that recovery at the instance of applicant is effected many days after the arrest, hence, it cannot be relied upon. In my opinion, this fact cannot be a criterion for not placing reliance on the said recovery panchnama. Hence, I find no merit in this submission. 6. Co-accused Kadiravan had a clean record, however, the applicant is involved in four other cases i.e. in CR No.391 of 1999 under Section 341, CR No.564 of 2000 under Sections 292 and 293 IPC, CR No.04 of 2003 under Sections 504, 323 of IPC, CR No.353 of 1998 under Sections 326 r.w. 34 of IPC, all registered at Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai. 7. Looking to the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application is [-5-] rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]