1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No.234/2011 ( Vijaysingh @ Babbu S/o Ujagarsingh Thakur ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through P.SO., P.S. Sewagram, Wardha ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.S. Manohar, Adv. for applicant. Mr. D.B. Patel, APP for respondent/State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 20.7.2011. 1. This is an application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for issuing directions to release the applicant on bail against whom the offence bearing Crime No.166/2011, under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act, is registered at the police station Sewagram, Wardha. 2. On 15/6/2011 one Vilas Budhbaware, the complainant in this case, was proceeding in an auto rickshaw from Sindhi Meghe to Umri Meghe. When the auto rickshaw reached near the field of one Vinod, one four wheeler Sumo overtook the auto rickshaw and stopped in front of it. The applicant Babbu alias Vijaysingh Thakur got down of the vehicle. Seven to eight persons, who were in the vehicle, also got down and encircled the complainant. The applicant put a gun on the head and asked his other associates to assault the complainant. He was assaulted by sword, knife and also by stone. At that time, the present applicant was instigating his 2 associates to kill the complainant. He then fell down. The applicant and his associates fled away from the spot. 3. The genesis of the incident is that the complainant and his brothers are the original owners of land, area 7 acres. Out of that, 4.7 acres was sold to one Laxman in 2007. Thereafter, said Laxman sold this land to the applicant. The area 2.75 acre remained with the complainant which is abutting the road. Since the applicant is interested in constructing building of the National Education and Sports Association, of which he is the Chairman, he is interested in grabbing this land and therefore, dispute used to occur between them. While the complainant was in hospital his statement was recorded which was treated as F.I.R. The Medical Officer who examined the injured on 16/6/2011 noticed the following injuries. “(1) incised wound over right knee 3 cm x 1 ½ cm x muscles deep fresh bleeding – sharp edges; (2) incised wound over left thigh 3 cm x 1 ½ cm x muscles deep, fresh bleeding. Sharp edges; (3) incised wound over left forearm posterior 8 cm x 3 ½ cm x muscles deep. sharp edges. fresh bleeding ++. (4) incised wound over left forearm 3cm x 1 cm x muscles deep. fresh bleeding ++; (5) incised wound left palm 3 ½ cm x 1 ½ cm x muscles deep; (6) incised wound over left front to parietal 8 cm x 3 cm x muscles deep. fresh bleeding ++ sharp edges; (7) incised wound right side parietal to occipital region. 6 cm x 1 ½ cm x muscles deep. fresh bleeding ++; (8) incised wound over right wrist 4 cm x 1 ½ cm x muscles deep. fresh bleeding ++. sharp edges; (9) multiple abrasions over back each are 7 cm x ½ cm.” The Medical Officer opined that they were possible by hard and 3 sharp object. The reply filed by learned A.P.P. is taken on the record. It is stated that there is a strong prima facie case showing his involvement in the serious offence. The vehicle and the gun are yet to be recovered. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. It is also stated that son of the applicant by name Guddu alias Amit is a person of bad antecedents, since about 18 offences, list of which annexed with the reply, are registered against him. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge while disposing the Miscellaneous Criminal Applications No.357/2011 and 369/2011. It is true that learned Additional Sessions Judge while considering the bail application made observations regarding nature of the injuries and according to him, section 307 may not be attracted. However, while rejecting the bail application of the present applicant (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.357/2011) learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that “thereafter applicant pointed a gun on the head of victim and instigated others to beat the victim and thereafter other accused gave blows of sword and knife to him. Allegation against the applicant is serious. Although gun was not actually used for firing, but even showing of gun can deter the victim to run away or else he will be fired upon. Police want to seize that revolver and therefore custodial interrogation of applicant is must or otherwise investigation will not be fruitful.” Therefore, the ground of parity canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant is not available to the applicant. 5. Next contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the witnesses whose statements have been recorded did not name the present 4 applicant. It is well settled principle that the detailed examination of the evidence, at the stage of considering bail application, is unwarranted. The F.I.R. lodged by the complainant clearly points out the role played by the applicant. 6. The other contentions in support of the application are that the accused is a man of repute who head the National Education and Sports Association. On the contrary, the complainant while he was juvenile was chargesheeted for committing the offence of murder. There are no chances of his absconding. Before the incident reports were lodged against the complainant. The fact that the applicant or somebody on his behalf was required to lodge the report against the complainant points out existing animosity between the parties and consequently, the cause for the incident. 7. Considering the nature of accusations, role played by the accused/applicant and the injuries caused to the complainant, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where discretion under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised. 8. Application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.