BA-735-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.735 OF 2011 Mohd. Usman Sultan Qureshi ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Kandivali Police Station ... Respondent Mr. Sayed Ijaz Abbas Naqui for the Applicant. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 22 ND JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the F.I.R. and glanced through the statements recorded during investigation. 3. The Applicant and two others have been arrested on the allegation of having committed murder of two persons i.e. one Amit and one Lalchand. The case of the Investigating Agency is that on 13th June, 2010, there was some quarrel between the Applicant and other accused, on one hand, and the deceased - Amit and Lalchand - and their friends, on the other hand, which BA-735-11.sxw 2 Dixit resulted into fight. During the course of the fight, the co-accused Raunak is alleged to have brought one piece of broken glass and stabbed Amit on a vital part of his body. At that time, the co-accused Salim had allegedly held the said Amit. When Lalchand had rushed to protect Amit, the present Applicant allegedly held him when the co-accused Raunak stabbed the said Lalchand also. 4. Undoubtedly, there exists a prima facie case against the Applicant. However, there are some peculiar features of the matter. The first is that only one stab was inflicted on each of the deceased. The stabs were given by the co- accused Raunak only. The weapon, i.e. the broken piece of glass, which was a sharp object, was also brought by the said Raunak only. The Applicant's role is only of holding the deceased Lalchand. But, apparently, this holding was done not for facilitating attack on him by Raunak, but for preventing the deceased from going towards Amit. 5. The incident has taken place over a trival matter. The assailants were not armed and the weapon was picked up from the nearby place. In this background, when the role attributed to the present Applicant is considered, his case for the purposes of bail need to be treated differently from the co-accused Raunak and even the co-accused Salim. 6. The Applicant is in custody since 13th June, 2010. There are no antecedents. The Applicant is said to be of 19 years. BA-735-11.sxw 3 Dixit 7. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant the Applicant one opportunity of availing of liberty, subject to certain conditions. It would be appropriate to expedite the trial also. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in like amount, on the condition that the Applicant shall report to the Kandivali Police Station everyday between 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. till the disposal of the case against him. 10. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]