IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3301 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3301 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3301 OF 2007 Imran Abdul Shaikh ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Mundargi i/b. Kuldip S. Patil for the Applicant Ms.Jhaveri for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 24th April, 2008. DATED : 24th April, 2008. DATED : 24th April, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicant is concerned in C.R.No.185 of 2006 of Indapur Police Station. The incident is of evening of 26.11.2007 when the co-accused like Dhananjay and others are said to have assaulted complainant Amit Rode. The present applicant along with others is sought to have ran away from the spot, and thereafter the present applicant came to be intercepted and arrested at Pandharpur while travelling on motor cycle and was transferred to the concerned police station namely Indapur Police Station. Soon after the occurrence statement of Nagesh has been recorded and he has stated that the present applicant was driving the Trax jeep at the -2- relevant time and it is he who brought the jeep to the site and the principal accused were travelling in the said jeep. After the incident of assault with sword and other weapons the jeep carrying the principal accused was driven away by the present applicant. Statement of Nagesh has been recorded on the next day i.e. on 27.11.2006. Two persons, namely Mohan and Navnath stated in line that what is stated by Nagesh, but their statements have been recorded after about two months i.e. on 5.2.2007. According to the prosecution after arrest blood stained clothes were recovered from the person of the present accused. 3. There is one more statement of one witness who claims that the present applicant indulged in the assault to the victim by name Nitin. 4. Mr. Mundargi submits that the statement of Nagnath came to be recorded after the applicant was arrested and therefore the chances of false implication of the present applicant cannot be ruled out. According to him the statement of the persons recorded on 5.2.2007 are at a belated stage and cannot be used against the present applicant. -3- Learned Advocate Mr. Mundargi further submitted that the role alleged against the applicant was a driver in particular. There was no scope for the blood stained clothes to be found on the person of the present applicant and the Investigating Agency has managed to create material against the present applicant. Learned Advocate Mr. Mundargi submitted that if the role alleged against the applicant is driving the vehicle to the spot and taking away the principal accused persons, there is no actual role of assault on the deceased and as such the applicant can be granted bail by putting him to terms. 5. Ms. Jhaveri opposed the same contending that the role of the applicant was important role as it was he who carried the assailants to the spot and carried them away after the principle accused indulged in the assault. She prays for rejection of the bail on the ground that Nagesh is a person of ordinary living and there is every likelihood that he would be bothered by the present applicant if released on bail. 6. The role against the present applicant as -4- manifested in the chargesheet is undoubtedly of carrying the accused to the site and taking them away after the occurrence. It may be that the applicant has actually not assaulted the victim, but the role met out by him is of absolute importance, because but for the applicant carrying the main assailant at the spot and taking them away after the assault, the main assailants could have been arrested on the spot. No much importance can be given to the blood stained clothes and that is not very much relevant for deciding the question of bail. The record indicates that the applicant had participated in the commission of the crime as a whole and a prima facie case is made out. 7. It is true that the principal witness in the present case would be one Nagesh and the rest of the two witnesses have stated something against the applicant after lapse of two and half years, but the question of protecting the interest of Nagesh is required to be considered, as there is every likelihood that the applicant would create impediment for giving smooth evidence by Nagesh, particularly because the applicant is known to the persons in the locality and Nagesh. In my view, -5- considering the nature of the allegations which are of serious nature, the bail application will have to be rejected. Hence the Order. ORDER . Application for bail is rejected. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)