1 appa453.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.453 OF 2010 In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.919 OF 2007 Anil Daya Bhai Parmar : Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent .... Ms Anjali Awasthi for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2010. P.C.: Ms Awasthi, the learned counsel for the applicant, appeared before us after the order was passed by this Court today whereby this Criminal Application filed by the applicant for grant of bail came to be dismissed for want of prosecution and prays that the application may be restored and the learned counsel is ready to argue the application. 2. Since the counsel for the applicant appeared almost immediately after the order of dismissal of the bail application for want of prosecution came to be passed, we revoke the said order and restore Criminal Application No.453 of 2010. 2 appa453.2010 3. Heard Ms Awasthi, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr.More, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution has examined Sunita (P.W.3) as an eye-witness to the incident. It is contended that the evidence of this witness is not reliable and creates doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. It is submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, as per the evidence of Sunita, her mother was also present on the spot. However, the prosecution failed to examine the mother of Sunita, who, Sunita claimed to be present on the spot at the time of the incident and, therefore, this is a case where the prosecution has suppressed the material evidence from the Court. 5. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that there are material omissions in the evidence of this sole eye-witness which create serious doubt about the authenticity of the testimony of this witness. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant is convicted primarily on the basis of the testimony of the sole eye-witness Sunita whose evidence is not trustworthy. Hence, this is a fit case where the applicant is entitled to be 3 appa453.2010 released on bail. 6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the payer of the applicant for grant of bail and submitted that the evidence of Sunita is cogent and trustworthy, free from material contradictions and omissions and is also corroborated by medical evidence as well as other circumstances such as the blood found on the clothes of the applicant was of `O’ group which was the blood-group of the deceased. Similarly, both the deceased sustained multiple stab wounds/incised wounds. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 7. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the evidence of the eye-witness Sunita. This witness in her examination-in-chief has stated that on 26.5.2004, she and deceased Sheetal were present in the kitchen of the house. At that time, the brother of this witness, deceased Laharilal and the mother of this witness were in the drawing room (hall) of the house. This witness has heard noise of her mother who had given call to deceased Sheetal. Deceased Sheetal and this witness went to the drawing room of the house and saw the applicant- accused assaulting the brother of this witness, deceased Laharilal on his 4 appa453.2010 chest by means of a weapon. When deceased Sheetal intervened, the applicant also assaulted her by means of an axe. There is no material omission or contradiction in respect of material particulars of the prosecution case. The omissions which were brought by the defence are not of a material nature so as to render the testimony of Sunita unreliable. 8. It is pertinent to note that Sunita lodged the complaint in the police station without lapse of time which prima facie ruled out the possibility of concoction and fabrication. Similarly, the material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by this witness are corroborated by medical evidence as well as other circumstances such as blood found on the clothes of the accused was of `O’ group which was the blood group of the deceased. 9. Taking into consideration the overall view of the evidence on record, this is not a fit case to grant bail. Hence, this Criminal Application is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A.P. BHANGALE,J.)