1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2829 of 2009 Ajit v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr C.A. Joshi, Adv for applicant Mr D.B. Patel, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 2nd September 2009 1. Heard Mr Joshi, learned counsel for applicant and Mr Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 68/08 registered with Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for applicant contends that complainant Vijay who is brother of deceased Pappu, lodged report on the assumption that it is applicant who has committed murder of Pappu. He further submits that statement of so- 2 called eye witness was recorded initially on 27.3.2008 and his additional statement was recorded on 8.4.2008. He further submits that since so-called eye witness Darbalsingh was friend of deceased, he would have immediately lodged report. However, lodging of report by complainant Vijay on hear-say, cannot be given that much weightage in order to refuse bail to the applicant. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed bail application that there is eye witness to the incident and that offence is serious, punishable with death or life imprisonment. 4. Medical opinion is received by investigating agency and it is opined that head injury is possible by stone which has been recovered from spot and sent to C.A. for analysis. Eye witness has stated that accused used iron rod and stone in making assault on Ajay Gupta who died on the spot. Clothes of applicant having blood stains have also been seized. As stated by learned APP, brother of applicant who is co-accused is absconding from the date of incident. In addition to the statements of Dalbarsingh, there are statements of 3 Ravindrasingh and Krishna Sahu implicating applicant along with his brother. 5. Under these circumstances, considering probable sentence of death or life imprisonment, it is possible that the same may impel applicant to flee from justice and tamper with prosecution evidence. Application is, therefore, rejected. Judge. hsj