..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2589 OF 2008 Mohammed Sajjad @ Saju Yakub Malik. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.V.S.Paradkar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 6th August, 2008. DATED : 6th August, 2008. DATED : 6th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.N.129 of 2008 of Bhandup police station. The said case is mainly under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC. 3. Four persons were injured in the incident i.e. Naznin, Zahir, Najma and Irfan. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant along with other accused assaulted these four persons. Witnes Naznin has specifically stated that the applicant assaulted Zahir on the forehead with sword. She has stated that thereafter the applicant assaulted her on the face with the sword. Due to this assault, Naznin received ..(2).. injuries on the eye, nose and lips. She also lost some teeth in the incident. So also she lost her eye sight of left eye. Looking to the role attributed to the applicant, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. 4. The learned APP has also stated that the applicant is also involved in one other case i.e. C.R. No.13 of 2007 u/sec.324 r/w.34 IPC of Bhandup police station. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on some observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 372 AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 372 AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 372. I have perused the said decision. The said case relates to cancellation of bail and it is in view of the issue which was before the Court i.e. cancellation of bail that the observations have been made in the said judgment. Hence the same could not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)