1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3699 /2009 [Amar @ Amrya Mahadeo Gajbhiye vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. B M Kharkate, Adv. for applicant Mr S B Ahirkar APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2010. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 53/2009 reported at Gondia Police Station initially reported under section 307 read with section 34 IPC. According to learned Advocate for the applicant some of the co-accused have been granted benefit of bail and, as such, the present applicant may also be released on bail. 3. It is contended that the assailants alleged to have used fists blow and kick blows to assault the deceased. However, this contention has been strongly objected by the learned APP on the ground that the brick was seized from the spot of the incident and, according to eye witnesses, the present applicant was armed with brick while assaulting the victim(deceased) and, therefore, he can not claim parity with other co-accused who were seen assaulting victim by means of kick blows / fist 2 blows. The bail application is also objected on the ground that the assailants assaulted the victim on account of previous enmity arising from alleged murder of one Guddu Gajbhiye and, in order to take revenge of that murder the victim Raja Shende was mercileslly assaulted not only by fist blows and kick blows but also by means of brick. In the result, he had suffered multiple injuries which were described in column no.17 of the PM notes as 22 in number. Furthermore, on internal examination, contusion was found on temporal region as also right tempero occipital region. Under these circumstances, there is prima facie reason to believe involvement of the applicant in the incident of murder out of vindictiveness for alleged prior murder. 4. Considering the likelihood of long sentence of imprisonment as also possibility of repetition of serious offence and tampering of the evidence, I am not inclined to grant bail. However the trial Court is expected to dispose of the sessions case as as expeditiously as possible. Application is rejected. JUDGE sahare