1 CR.APL NO.26/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 14. CRI.APPLN/126/2011 WITH CRI. APPLN/371/2011 In CRI. APPLN/126/2011 (Ashish Vs. The State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. M.V.Deshpande, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for respondent State. Mr. H.I.Pathan, Adv., for the applicant/complainant. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 1-2-2011 1. Heard. Mr. H.I.Pathan, Counsel, for the complainant, desires to assist learned A.P.P. Considering the nature of accusations, permitted. Application, to the extent of assisting learned A.P.P., is allowed. 2. Altaf, aged 50 years, on account of clash on the issue of erection of wall, faced its brunt. While he was in the shop, the accused/applicants, with their brother, a juvenile, barged the shop of Altaf and, allegedly, assaulted 2 CR.APL NO.26/2011 him with knife, rod sticks and other lethal instruments. 3. Learned A.P.P. invites my attention to the statement of Ahmed Ikbal and Mahamad Akbar, who have specifically pointed out role of each of the accused/applicant in eliminating said Altaf. 4. Mr.Deshpande, Counsel for the accused/applicant submits that these are the only two witnesses who are supporting the prosecution while rest of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution. Having analyzed statements of the rest of the witnesses I find that their statements are recorded in stereo type by the investigator; everybody refers to the events, however, informs that they saw Ashish near the shop standing and does not refer to other witnesses. At this stage of the matter, the statements of the above referred two witnesses does not call for any criticism, to be dishonest to rope in entire family of the accused/applicant. On the other hand, the primary impression 3 CR.APL NO.26/2011 is, the investigator by collecting statement of the witnesses, rather unconcerned, went off at a tangent to create a situation of confusion. 5. The contention of Mr.Deshpande that there was only one injury, pointed through the post mortem notes, at column no.17, is not so, as the injuries at Column No.17 illustrated, it was a multiple attack on facial region of the deceased and it could not be accounted only to accused no.1 alone or retrieving other accused persons. Consequently, no case to release the accused on bail even after chargesheet is filed. The observations are prima facie in nature. The learned Judge seized with the matter shall expeditiously dispose of the Sessions case. Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/126-11crapl