1 Cri.Appln.No.1456/2011 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1456/2011 ( Nisar Khan Yunus Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. AM Karad, Adv. for Applicant/s; Mr. VH Dighe, APP for State. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 25 th April, 2011. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) This is the second application, seeking pre-arrest bail. The earlier application, being Criminal Application No. 4982/2010 was rejected by order dated 2nd of December, 2010. 3) Mr.Karad, learned Counsel, submits that even if the complainant has suffered the injuries, however, the prime role was attributed to one Kadir Maulana, who is later on being exonerated in subsequent statement. No active role is shown to the accused/applicant. These facts were not before the Court when Criminal Application No.4982/2010 was heard and consequently, it was rejected. Learned Counsel has read the statements of the complainant and also of the witnesses to criticize the worth therein, to 2 Cri.Appln.No.1456/2011 illustrate that the accused/applicant is not involved in the commission of offence. 4) The contention that the accused/applicant is not involved in the alleged offence is primarily rebelling as the record of two eye-witnesses, coupled with the injured/complainant implicate the accused with specific role in assaulting with lethal weapon and hockey stick. Recovery of such hockey stick from other accused by itself will not be adhering to release the accused/applicant on pre-arrest bail. The bail sought, is not as of right, it is a discretion to be exercised judiciously. This case does not fit within the brackets of powers vested in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The application lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/