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 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1476 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1476 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1476 OF 2009 Devanand @ Dewa madhukar Shikhare, Applicant. Vs The State of Maharashtra, ... Respondent. Mr Shekhar A.Ingawale, for the applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 06/04/200 DATE : 06/04/200 DATE : 06/04/2009 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.228/08 of Vishrambag Police Station, Sangli. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 143,147,148,302,149 of IPC and u/s.135 of Bombay Police Act. 3. It is the prosecution case that the present applicant and ten others have allegedly committed murder of Kondiba Shinde on 28.11.2008 at 7.30 pm. The incident was witnessed by about 7-8 persons including the complainant. I have perused the statements of almost all the witnesses. All the witnesses have named the present applicant. Mr Ingawale, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that except the complainant, no other eye-witnesses has attributed specific role to the applicant. He submitted that though some of the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, still they have not assigned any role to the present applicant which show that the present applicant did not participate in the alleged incident. From the statements of the complainant and other witnesses it appears that almost all the accused persons were armed with sharp edged weapons and they assaulted the deceased who sustained 49 injuries, most of which were either incised or stab wounds. The cause of death recorded by the Doctor is "death due to multiple penetrating injuries to multiple vital organs as heart, lung, liver, intestine, trachea associated with craniocerebral injury". The complainant, who, at the relevant time, was standing by the side of the deceased had an opportunity to witness the incident right from beginning till the end. He has specifically attributed overt act to the present applicant, who allegedly assaulted the deceased with the weapon, he was armed with at the relevant time. It is true that there is no recovery of the weapon at his instance, but that will not help him at this stage. Though the other witnesses have not attributed specific overt act to the applicant, it is clear from their statements that the present applicant was also one of the assailants who killed the deceased. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The application is rejected. . While rejecting this application, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)