1 20.apln2318&2350-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2318 OF 2010 1. Mohammed Sabir Khudabaksh, & 2. Shaikh Yasin Shaikh Usman. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2350 OF 2010 1. Sajid Wajid Hussain, & 2. Rizwan @ Bablu Nizamuddin Qureshi. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Smt.S.A. Dhamale, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 15TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on both the applications for bail preferred by the respective applicants for their release on bail during pendency of the matter for the 2 20.apln2318&2350-10 offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and other offences of rioting armed with deadly weapons. 2. Admittedly there are eye witnesses to the said incident, including the first informant who himself is severely injured person. On the fateful night on 17th May, 2008 in the godown when the complainant and deceased were sleeping, present applicants and other co-accused, total about more than 17 or 18 persons, entered the said godown armed with deadly weapons like swords, knives, sticks, iron bars etc. and created an atmosphere of terror and riot like situation and assaulted the deceased so also the first informant. The deceased tried to ran away to save his life however could not succeed and was murdered on the spot. The first informant became unconscious and subsequently regained consciousness. On the same night, first information report (FIR) was lodged in which names of only four assailants were mentioned and it was further mentioned that there were more accused persons holding similar such weapons. Even on 3 20.apln2318&2350-10 the same night, further statement of the complainant was recorded in which he took the names of the present applicants and gave respective roles as to holding different weapons such as knives. Apart from the first informant, there are other eye witnesses whose statements were recorded on the same night and they took the names of all the present applicants and the type of the weapons they were holding. 3. It cannot be overlooked that apart from the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, the offences of rioting and the offence punishable under Section 149 of IPC is charged against the applicants and, as such, considering the prima facie involvement of these applicants, as mentioned above, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release them during pendency of the trial. This is more so when the other co-accused in Criminal Application no.1355 of 2010 has not been granted bail by this Court and vide order on that application dated 22th June, 2010 this Court has expedited the trial to be completed within nine months. In view of this 4 20.apln2318&2350-10 position, there is nothing to entertain the present applications for grant of bail. Hence the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application Nos.2318/2010 & 2350/2010 for regular bail are rejected (A.R.JOSHI,J.)