1 app5693.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5693 OF 2010 Ramesh Sonba Gholap. ....Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. Mr. V.V.Salunke, advocate for applicant. Ms. P.P.Shinde, APP for Respondent. CORAM:- J.H.BHATIA,J. DATED:- JANUARY 13, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the police papers. 2. As per the FIR lodged by Ashpak Salim Bagwan, brother of the deceased Javed, during the night between 23/6/2010 and 24/6/2010 at about 12.30 to 12.45, both of them were talking near Ganpati temple. At that time, Akash alias Taya and 12 other named persons came there with swords, sickles, choppers etc. and assaulted Javed. Due to fear Ashpak ran away. At about 1.30 a.m. he got telephonic message from Police Station that his brother Javed was seriously injured and therefore, he went to police station and there he came to know that 2 app5693.10 his brother was murdered. There were large number of bleeding injuries all over his body, particularly, head, neck and other parts of the body. Present applicant Ramesh Gholap was also named in that FIR as one of the assailant. During the investigation, the applicant was arrested and on the basis of information given by him, blood stained knife(sura) as well as blood stained clothes were recovered from him. CA report is not produced. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that two eye witnesses of the incident did not disclose the name of the applicant. Even if it is so, the fact remains that the FIR was lodged immediately by brother of the deceased, and he had clearly stated how the attack began and who were the assailants. In view of the fact that blood stained clothes and knife were recovered from the applicant, I find that it is not a fit case to grant bail. The deceased had suffered as may as 29 injuries on the different parts of the body. If the bail is granted in such a case, there will be every possibility that either the applicant may abscond or may tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 3. Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)