1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [ABA] No. 170 of 2011 (Vinod S/o. Haridas Thul Vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.A. Sonak, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for the State/Non-applicant CORAM : M. N. GILANI, J. DATE : 15 th JUNE, 2011. Heard. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.48/2011, registered by the Police Station M.I.D.C. Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 324, 323, 506-B, 143, 147, 148, 149 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. On 15/04/2011, at 9:30 p.m., one Ritesh Mankar was present in his house. His mother and grand-mother were also present there. At that time, one Nilesh Kawre and his friend viz. Swapnil Meshram, entered in the house. They were armed with sword and knife. Ritesh Mankar was dragged outside the house and was stabbed with sword on his person by Nilesh Kawre and Swapnil Meshram. His mother and grand-mother, who ran for his rescue, were also hurt. Mother of the deceased lodged F.I.R. and on that basis offence came to be registered. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that after registration of offence, applicant had been to the Police Station, but he was not arrested. In F.I.R., his name is not appearing. Despite there being no evidence against the applicant, Police involved him falsely in the offence. 2 In reply filed by learned A.P.P., it is stated that during course of investigation, it is found that the present applicant had played important role along with other accused and helped them to flee away from the spot and burnt the clothes worn by the main assailants at the time of commission of crime. The learned APP made available the case diary for perusal of this Court. On perusal of the same, I am satisfied that there lies substance in the contention of learned A.P.P. that the present applicant is also involved in the offence. For unfolding the alleged conspiracy, the custodial interrogation is necessary. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I am of the view that directions under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure to release the accused on bail in the event of his arrest cannot be issued. Application is rejected. JUDGE *sdw