appln-1960-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 1960 of 2010 Dattatraya Ishwar Kalkumbe and ors .. .. .. .. Applicants. versus State of Maharashtra .. .. .. .. Respondent. Mr Ajay A. Joshi for the Applicants. Mr K. V. Saste, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 22nd JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicants arrested in connection with C.R. No. 207 of 2009 registered by Mangalwedha Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of I.P.C. read with allied offences punishable for rioting armed with deadly weapons. 2. Incident of assault on the first informant occurred on 26.10.2009 at 3:30 p.m. Prior to that, present applicant No.1 was appln-1960-10 censored by the first informant for not to indulge in eve-teasing of his daughter. However, present applicant No.1 had not given any heed to this suggestion. In fact, out of such conduct and censoring by the first informant, he was accosted on the date of incident by applicant No.1 in association with other co-accused including present applicant Nos.2 and 3. Allegedly, one more co-accused by name Daji who was accompanying applicant No.1, used sword and hit on the head of the complainant. The complainant also received some other injuries. Medical examination report show three incised wounds, one stab wound and seven to eight C.L.Ws. Incise wounds and stab wound were caused by sharp edge weapon. Injuries are of serious nature. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that during such assault present applicant No.1 was instigating the main assailant Daji to do away with the complainant and other applicants were present along with other co-accused. After the assault, when the complainant fell down in severely injured condition, he was thrown away nearby the pond and the assailants ran away. In such severely injured condition the complainant reached his house and he was taken to the hospital for treatment. It appears that by chance the complainant had survived the deadly attack and as such the case is now only for the offence punishable under Section 307 of appln-1960-10 I.P.C.otherwise it would have been punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code. 3. Admittedly, the applicants, other co-accused, the injured and his family members are residents of same locality and considering that release of the applicants on bail, during pendency of the trial, would be a potential harm to the safety of the witnesses, including the safety of the complainant, and also his daughter on whose account such assault took place. In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case in which the applicants can be released on bail during pendency of the trial. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Bail Application is rejected. (b) Directions are given to the concerned Sessions Court which is seized of the matter to expeditiously dispose of the matter after framing of the charge, if same is yet not framed. (c) The learned Sessions Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order so far as the merits of the case are concerned. 4. Application is disposed of in terms of this order. LRS-PA (A.R.JOSHI,J) appln-1960-10