Chandka :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3365 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3365 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3365 OF 2007 Gulam Mohamed Abdul Razak Khan ..Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. Ganesh Gole for the Applicant. Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondents - State. CORAM : V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V. C. DAGA, J. DATE : 11TH OCTOBER, 2007 DATE : 11TH OCTOBER, 2007 DATE : 11TH OCTOBER, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the Respondents - State. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, Thane, while rejecting the application for bail vide order dated 5.10.2007 passed below Exhibit ’1’ in Criminal Bail Application No. 1403 of 2007 has recorded the following reasons:- "Under the circumstances, there is certainly "Under the circumstances, there is certainly "Under the circumstances, there is certainly Chandka :2: an eye witness who had seen the assailant an eye witness who had seen the assailant an eye witness who had seen the assailant and question of holding an identification and question of holding an identification and question of holding an identification parade comes into picture. The next parade comes into picture. The next parade comes into picture. The next question would be to recover the weapons question would be to recover the weapons question would be to recover the weapons used in the incident. From the facts used in the incident. From the facts used in the incident. From the facts disclosed in the statements it is apparent disclosed in the statements it is apparent disclosed in the statements it is apparent that the offence is u/s. 307 IPC. The case that the offence is u/s. 307 IPC. The case that the offence is u/s. 307 IPC. The case is therefore, serious in nature not only is therefore, serious in nature not only is therefore, serious in nature not only because of the injury that is but because of because of the injury that is but because of because of the injury that is but because of the manner in which it was caused and the the manner in which it was caused and the the manner in which it was caused and the weapon used for causing the same. In view weapon used for causing the same. In view weapon used for causing the same. In view of this position, in my opinion, custodial of this position, in my opinion, custodial of this position, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary interrogation of the applicant is necessary interrogation of the applicant is necessary firstly to establish the identity of the firstly to establish the identity of the firstly to establish the identity of the assailant and secondly to recover the assailant and secondly to recover the assailant and secondly to recover the weapon. The second question would not doubt weapon. The second question would not doubt weapon. The second question would not doubt depend upon the first question but both the depend upon the first question but both the depend upon the first question but both the purposes will be served by custodial purposes will be served by custodial purposes will be served by custodial interrogation of the applicant and the interrogation of the applicant and the interrogation of the applicant and the procedure to be followed to establish the procedure to be followed to establish the procedure to be followed to establish the identity. Though at this stage, it cannot identity. Though at this stage, it cannot identity. Though at this stage, it cannot be said with any certainty that it is the be said with any certainty that it is the be said with any certainty that it is the applicant who had fired the bullet, the applicant who had fired the bullet, the applicant who had fired the bullet, the possibility can get converted into possibility can get converted into possibility can get converted into probability only after necessary probability only after necessary probability only after necessary interrogation and the process to establish interrogation and the process to establish interrogation and the process to establish the identity. In view of these facts and the identity. In view of these facts and the identity. In view of these facts and the seriousness of the offence, I do not the seriousness of the offence, I do not the seriousness of the offence, I do not think that the applicant deserves to be think that the applicant deserves to be think that the applicant deserves to be granted bail. It is argued that after the granted bail. It is argued that after the granted bail. It is argued that after the interim order was passed on 13.9.2007 the interim order was passed on 13.9.2007 the interim order was passed on 13.9.2007 the police had never called the applicant for police had never called the applicant for police had never called the applicant for interrogation at the police station. In interrogation at the police station. In interrogation at the police station. In normal cases obviously this could have been normal cases obviously this could have been normal cases obviously this could have been relevant but question is to establish the relevant but question is to establish the relevant but question is to establish the identity and to recover the weapon which is identity and to recover the weapon which is identity and to recover the weapon which is possible only in custodial interrogation. possible only in custodial interrogation. possible only in custodial interrogation. In fact, when the identity is to establish, In fact, when the identity is to establish, In fact, when the identity is to establish, calling the applicant at the police station calling the applicant at the police station calling the applicant at the police station could have complicated the facts. In view could have complicated the facts. In view could have complicated the facts. In view of this position, the application has to be of this position, the application has to be of this position, the application has to be dismissed." dismissed." dismissed." 3. Having seen the aforesaid reasons, I concur with the same. In my view, considering that there Chandka :3: are strained relations between the present applicant and the victim in the backdrop of the nature and gravity of the offence alleged, the custodial investigation may be necessary. 4. At this stage, I may mention, that the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has heavily relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 S.C. 1632). State of Punjab (AIR 1980 S.C. 1632). State of Punjab (AIR 1980 S.C. 1632). Having gone through the said judgment, in my view, the law laid down in the said judgment can hardly be disputed, however, it has to be applied depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case considering the nature of the offence and gravity thereof. Looking to the peculiar facts of this case, there is no prima facie material to show that the applicant has been falsely implicated. 5. In the above view of the matter, the Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE