BA-965-966-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.965 OF 2011 Imtiyaz Mohd. Shahid Shaikh ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai ... Respondent ALONG WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.966 OF 2011 Nurul Shamashul Haque Shah ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai ... Respondent Ms. Anjali Patil for the Applicants. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM: A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 10 TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1. Both these Bail Applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as both the Applicants are the accused in the same case. 2. Heard. BA-965-966-11.sxw 2 Dixit 3. One Mohd. Yusuf Mohd. Shahid Shaikh was assaulted by four persons i.e. one Sheruali, Imtiyaz, i.e. Applicant in Bail Application No.965 of 2011, Nurul, i.e. Applicant in Bail Application No.966 of 2011, and one Mohammed. The First Information Report has been lodged by the victim himself, who, subsequently, died. In the First Information Report, the role of actually assaulting by a weapon has been attributed to the co-accused Mohammed. The role attributed to the Applicant Imtiyaz is that he and others had held the victim when Mohammed was assaulting him with a sharp weapon. From the statements of some other persons, that were recorded during investigation, it appears that the Applicants had also assaulted the deceased, but by fists and kicks. 4. I have considered the matter. So far as the Applicant Imtiyaz is concerned, the role attributed to him is not as grave or serious as attributed, not only to the said Mohammed, but also to the Applicant Nurula and the co- accused Sheruali. Nurula had, allegedly, called Mohammed, who came on the scene of the offence with the weapon and assaulted the victim. Applicant Nurula and the co-accused Sheruali also appear to have instigated the said Mohammed to assault the victim, if the version in the First Information Report is seen. Thus, the case of the Applicant Nurula does not seem to be on par with that of the Applicant Imtiyaz. 5. No antecedents are reported. BA-965-966-11.sxw 3 Dixit 6. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I think it fit to release the Applicant Imtiyaz on bail. I am, however, not inclined to release the Applicant Nurula on bail, particularly, because I am informed that the matter has been kept for framing of charge, and that there is every reason to expect the trial to be over within a short time. 7. The Bail Application No.965 of 2011 is allowed. 8. The Applicant in Bail Application No.965 of 2011 is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each. 9. The Bail Application No.966 of 2011 is rejected. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]