BA-917-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.917 OF 2011 Ganesh Raghunath Bhoir ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath, Dist. Thane ... Respondent Mr. Subhash Jha, i/b. Law Global, for the Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent. Mr. Ganesh Gole for the Intervener. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for the First Informant. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 15 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Jha, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the Respondent. I have also heard Mr. Gole, the learned Advocate for the mother of the deceased, who was allowed to intervene and oppose the Bail Application. I have also heard Mr. A.H.H. Ponda, the learned Advocate for the First Informant. 2. Though the matter has been argued at length by Mr. Jha, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. It needs to be observed that the Applicant has been given a specific role; namely of holding the deceased while he was fired at by the co-accused-Bhalchandra Bhoir. Thus, going by the F.I.R. and the version of the eye witness one Gyaneshwar Kolekar, there exists a prima facie case against the Applicant. BA-917-11.sxw 2 Dixit 3. The emphasis of Mr. Jha, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, was primarily on two aspects; the first one is that some of the persons, whose statements were recorded during investigation, are found to have lied about certain features of the prosecution case. He pointed out that some of the persons, who made statements supporting the theory of conspiracy, were found to have lied with respect to the presence of certain persons, initially named as accused, and that such accused persons have been discharged by the Investigating Agency under the provisions of Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The substance of his contention is that the possibility of over implication because of the group rivalry cannot be overlooked, and that, once that is so, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4. Though the possibility of over implication is apparent, I find that so far as the Applicant is concerned, a specific role has been attributed to him. It would be difficult, at this stage, to hold that there has been an over implication with respect to the present Applicant. Mr. Jha, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, submitted that the possibility of 16 persons having entered the cabin, which is of a small size, cannot be accepted and, though there may be substance in this contention, the fact remains that on the ground that 16 persons could not have been inside the cabin, it cannot be believed or accepted that the Applicant was also not there. 5. The other point canvassed by Mr. Jha, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, is that a cross case has been registered in the matter; and that the facts of the cross case indicate that about 50 to 60 persons of age group of 20 to 25 years had, by forming an unlawful assembly, attacked the Petrol Pump. The deceased is alleged to be one of them. The substance of the submission of Mr. Jha BA-917-11.sxw 3 Dixit is that, if in the course of such an incident, the death of the said Sameer Gosavi occurred, the matter has to be viewed from a proper angle for deciding the prayer of the Applicant for bail. 6. I do not wish to discuss the merits of the cross case while deciding the present Bail Application, but the fact remains that nobody from the group of the Applicant appears to have been injured in the incident, even as per the version giving rise to the cross case. At-least no serious injuries were suffered by anyone. On the ground that a cross case has been registered, it cannot be held that there is no basis for levelling the accusation against the present Applicant. 7. Considering the nature of the offence, and since a prima facie case exists against the Applicant, I am not inclined to release him on bail. 8. The Bail Application is rejected. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]