1 A-718-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 718 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2009 Mohammed Irshad Kamal Hasan Shaikh @ Chotu ..Applicant /Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. H. E. Mooman for Applicant / Appellant. Mrs. A. S. Pai – Additional Public Prosecutor for State – Respondent. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant / appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent – State. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case the evidence of the eye witnesses, viz., P.W. 1 PSI – J. N. Sawant, P.W. 2 police personnel - S. D. Panigrahi and P.W. 3 Police Constable V. D. 2 A-718-10 Mahagaonkar, is inconsistent with each other. It is contended that these are the witnesses examined by the prosecution in order to bring home the charges framed against the applicant / accused. It is submitted that if their testimonies are scrutinized there is inconsistency about the place of arrest, the time of the incident and the said evidence is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned counsel for the applicant therefore submitted that the direct evidence itself is not trustworthy and unreliable, the applicant who is in jail for a long time is entitled to be released on bail. 3. It is further contended that so far as recovery of weapon is concerned, the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard is also not trustworthy. The other circumstances also do not corroborate the material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by the eye witnesses and therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand has submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses is consistent with each other and is corroborated by the medical evidence. It is submitted that the applicant was apprehended on the spot, from whom the weapon of offence i.e. the revolver was seized. It is submitted that since the testimony of eye witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence coupled with the arrest 3 A-718-10 of the applicant on the spot, recovery of weapon from him, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court is just and proper. 5. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. It is well settled that at the stage of consideration of bail application, this Court cannot go into the aspect of entire re appreciation of the evidence on record. Considering the case of the prosecution as well as the evidence of the eye witnesses which is corroborated by the medical evidence and the other circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to make out any case for grant of bail. Hence, Criminal Application is rejected. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)