1 Cri-A-28-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2011 Ahmed Hussain Abid Ali Ansari .. Applicant/accused Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms. Jamila Shaikh,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S.A..Shaikh, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 28th January, 2011. P.C. 1. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.265/2010 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences under Section 397 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 2.8.2010 at about 7 p.m. injured Dilshad Rayees Sayyed along with his friend reached near Anmol Seva Sangh Parking at Govandi. At that time, the present applicant and his two companions Mohsin and Shadab approached him and objected to his standing in that lane and 2 Cri-A-28-11.sxw also threatened to kill him. Saying so, Shadab began to assault Dilshad with sword while his two companions Mohsin and Ahmed took out choppers and began to assault him. He also threatened the people against intervening. Number of injuries were caused with the swords and choppers. However, after the incident, his friend arranged to take him to Rajawadi Hospital and then to Sion Hospital for treatment. Initial report was lodged on the same day by his brother Shamshad. Statements of injured Dilshad were recorded on 4.8.2010 as earlier he was not in a position to make statement. The medical certificate shows that Dilshad had suffered as many as 13 incised wounds on vital parts of the body. Four incised wounds were on his head and one on the neck. He appears to have survived by luck and timely treatment. Thus, prima facie, case under Sec. 307 read with Section 34 IPC is made out. 4. Accused Mohsin has been released because he is a juvenile. Accused Shadab is still absconding. The present applicant was arrested on 4.8.2010 and he is in custody. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed and the case is committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the injured has survived and, therefore, bail may be granted and for this purpose, she placed 3 Cri-A-28-11.sxw reliance upon Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2001 (3) Crimes 410 (SC) where the Supreme Court granted bail in an offence under Sec. 307 IPC as the accused was in custody for about 8 months and there was no possibility of further escalation of the offence to higher counts. The circumstances in which the present applicant and his companions without any previous enmity or reason assaulted Dilshad with swords and choppers and caused as many as 13 incised wounds, shows that if the bail is granted, there is every possibility that the applicant may either abscond like another absconding accused or may cause danger to the life of the eye-witnesses. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is not desirable to grant bail. However, the trial Court may be asked to expedite the trial. 6. Therefore, the application stands rejected. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the case and dispose of the same as early as possible and, in any case, by the end of June, 2011. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)