1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 103 of 2011. Salim khan Mahemood khan Pathan ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Washim Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. B.P.Maldhure, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 16 th March, 2011 . Heard Mr. R.L.Khapre, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mrs. B.P.Maldhure, learned APP for the respondent/State. By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is seeking his release on bail in connection with Crime No. 180/2010, registered at Police Station, Washim for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302 of Indian Penal Code. At the outset, Mr. Khapre, learned Advocate for the applicant fairly submits that this is second attempt of the applicant seeking his release on bail in connection with the said crime. He submits that on the earlier occasion when the applicant had approached this Court vide Criminal Application No. 1628/2010, the applicant was allowed to withdraw that application with liberty to the applicant to file fresh application as and when the occasion arises. Learned Advocate for the applicant further submits that in view of changed circumstances, the applicant is approaching this Court again. The grounds raised as change circumstance are change in 2 the weapon as alleged against applicant/accused and one civil suit filed by the complainant’s relative. Mrs. Maldhure, learned APP for the State has strongly opposed the application and submitted that there is no change circumstance. She further submitted that when earlier application was presented by the applicant, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet was filed and therefore, the relevant material was collected by the investigating machinery. With the help of learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State, I have gone through the material. The statement of victim Habib khan Ijjat Khan Pathan recorded by the investigating agency refers to the presence of the applicant, who was armed with deadly weapon and assaulted the victim Habib khan. The statement further reveals that the applicant along with other accused persons entered in the field having deadly weapons and assaulted the victim Habib Khan and his father Ijjat Khan. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant at the initial stage that when the statement of victim Habib Khan was recorded, the reference was made to the weapon ‘pipe’, whereas in the subsequent statement the weapon has been changed to ‘Gupti’. Even considering this material, I am of the opinion that this ground cannot be termed as change circumstance for the reason that in the statement of victim, a specific reference about his presence having weapon is there. It is revealed from the statement that the victim and his father were subjected to the assault and deadly weapons were used in the assault by the applicant and other accused persons. Learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted that when the earlier application was filed, a reference could not be made to the certain documents i.e. injury certificate etc.. In my opinion, this cannot be a changed circumstance. If the applicant was 3 approaching this Court for enlargement on bail and protection at the hands of this Court, it was for the applicant to place on record the relevant material for consideration of his application. On considering the material, I am of the opinion that no change of circumstance is brought on record by the applicant so as to grant prayer for release on bail. There is strong material against the applicant about his presence as well as active participation in the assault. Even filing civil suit by the relative of the complainant, cannot be said to be change in circumstance. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE Diwale