1 Cr Apln 2502 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.2502 Of 2011 Prasad s/o Manmathrao Betale (Patil) .. Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. -------- Shri. Gajanan Kadam, Advocate, for applicant. Shri. N.H. Borade, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent. -------- CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE: 5th JULY 2011 PER COURT : 1) This application is filed for bail in Crime No.14/2011 registered at Nanded Rural Police Station for offence under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for offence under section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Papers of investigation are made available. Both the sides are heard. 2) The crime is registered on the basis of a report given by the mother of the deceased. The incident took place on 17-1-2011 after 9.30 p.m. The complainant has contended that, a boy informed her that, Prasad was assaulting her son with a 2 Cr Apln 2502 of 2011 knife. The complainant and her daughter went to the spot an she noticed that her son was lying injured and the present applicant was present by the side of the injured. She has given names of other witnesses who were present there. Sister of the deceased shouted but nobody dared to come forward when the accused was assaulting the deceased. 3) The Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is inconsistency in the statements given by the witnesses and the statements given by the mother and sister of the deceased and there is probability that they did not witness the incident. This aspect cannot be considered at this stage. There is discovery of weapon and blood stained clothes of the accused. The discharge card of the accused shows that he suffered CLW on scalp. This material is sufficient to make out prima facie case for offence under section 302 of the IPC. The post mortem report shows that as many as 20 injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased and most of the injuries were stab and incised. The probable cause of death was stab injury to right lung, spleen and stomach. The material shows that the assault was made in presence of many persons but nobody dared to come forward. 3 Cr Apln 2502 of 2011 4) The Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the reported judgments in support of his contention. (1) Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, AIR 1978 SC 429. (2) Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 475. (3) Jayndra Saraswathi v. State of T.N., AIR 2005 SC 716. (4) Anand Prafulla Behra v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1710. (5) Mehmood Mohammed Sayeed v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 482. (6) Hussainara Khotoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360. The facts and circumstances in each and every case are different. The applicant may tamper with prosecution witnesses. 5) This is not a fit case to grant bail. The application is rejected. The observations made in this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose of deciding this application and they shall not be considered by the trial Court while deciding the case. Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) rsl