1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1401 of 2010 Shadab v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.M. Bhangde, Adv for applicant Mr J.B. Jaiswal, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 16.9.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for State. Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 78/2010 registered with Police Station, Kuhi, District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been implicated on the alleged confessional statement of main accused which cannot be believed so as to refuse anticipatory bail to the applicant who has played no role muchless an active one in the present crime. He further submits that the weapon of offence has been recovered at the instance of accused no. 1 and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not at all necessary. 3. Learned APP has opposed the application. 4. In the present case, investigation is still going on and C.A. Report is also awaited. It is borne out from record that the assailants 2 had teamed up in an Indigo car and they committed murder of the deceased by causing multiple injuries to him. Accusations are serious in nature and custodial interrogation of the applicant would be necessary. Possibility of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence and hampering the further investigation cannot be ruled out. This is not, therefore, a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Application stands rejected. Interim order stands vacated. Judge. joshi