1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.668 OF 2011 (ABHISHEK CHAITANYESHWAR DEKATE//VS// STATE OF MAH. THR. PS. KOTWALI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. B.P.Maldhure, A.P.P. for Respondent. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2011. Heard both sides. This is an application for releasing the applicant on bail who has been charge sheeted before Sessions Court, Nagpur for the alleged offence of committing murder of one Sandeep Chendke. The deceased had purchased a plot from the original owner, a part of which is in occupation of the uncle of Gaurav Chakole, who is accused No.1. On the issue of vacating the possession of the plot dispute was going on between Sandeep-deceased on one hand and Gaurav Chakole and his uncle on the other. The incident occurred on 15.03.2011 at about 6.30 p.m. in front of the plot which was in dispute. It is alleged that Gaurav Chakole and accused No.2 Abhishek Dekate-applicant herein and two others had brutally assaulted the deceased with weapons like knife, sword etc. The deceased had sustained injuries which were mainly in the nature of stab wounds and incised wounds and the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs. First Information Report was lodged by Mahesh, brother of the deceased. According to him, he witnessed the incident. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the statements of Milind Darwhekar and Shruti Chendke, widow of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, there is no consistency between the contents in the first information report and the statements of these witnesses, particularly relating to the role of the applicant. This aspect was dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 7 of his order. He observed : “In the F.I.R. the complainant stated that co- accused and present applicants were seen giving knife blows to deceased. There are as many as 40 injuries on the body of deceased as noticed during postmortem. In view of this previous bail application was rejected of this applicant by the predecessor. Now learned Adv. wants this Court to consider distinction in the text of F.I.R. and statements of alleged eye witnesses who are wife and Civil Contractor relating to the work of deceased. As far as statements of these witnesses are concerned no doubt there is no reference to the name of this applicant as assailant of the deceased. But the distinction between contents of F.I.R. and statements of these witnesses will not be material at this stage. Considering the deceased is brutally done to death and there is reasonable apprehension of prosecution that the applicant is likely to threaten the prosecution witnesses, therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence I do not found any new material ground to exercise discretion of bail in favour of applicant.” On perusal of statement of Milind it appears that after accused No.1 started assaulting the deceased, the accused No.1 had asked him to leave the place and therefore, he went away. Shruti, in her statement, stated that at the time of incident the present applicant and two more persons were present on the spot of occurrence. 3 In that light of the matter, it cannot be said that these two witnesses Milind and Shruti have exonerated the applicant-accused No.2. Considering the role attributed to the applicant/ accused No.2 in the first information report and the seizure of blood stained knife at his instance on 18.03.2011, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the bail application. No interference with the said order is necessary. Considering the gravity and nature of the offence the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The application is rejected. JUDGE RR..