1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1772 OF 2010 (Imtiyaz Mohammad Khan Pathan .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.L. Vairagade, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 180/2010 registered with the Police Station, Washim. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that only because of previous enmity, the applicant is roped in the report lodged with Washim Police Station on 20th May, 2010. He further submits that even bare perusal of the report dated 20th May, 2010 would reveal that there is neither mention of the name of the applicant nor any role is attributed to the applicant. He submits that the allegations are against the other persons and more particularly one Taher Khan Gujis Khan and the son of Mehmood Khan. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of such vague statements, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that the applicant is a student and young boy of 24 years of age. Per contra, learned APP has strongly opposed the applicant by filing the reply. Learned APP has made available the material collected by the investigating agency. He invited my attention to the statement of Habib Khan recorded by the investigating agency on the very next day of the incident i.e. on 21st May, 2010. In the statement, it is very specifically mentioned about the presence of the applicant who was armed with Gupti. It is further stated that the applicant assaulted the victim by Gupti. 2 Learned APP further submitted that there are also statements of other witnesses including one Firoz Khan Rahim Khan. This witness also stated about the presence of the applicant and his active participation in the assault. In view of the strong material against the applicant and in view of the admitted fact that there is enmity between the parties, the apprehension expressed by the learned APP that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may pressurize the witnesses is justified. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.