1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No.473/2011 Sushil s/o Siddharth Borkar Vs. State of Maharashtra. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 10/10/2011. Heard Mr. V. M. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. N. R. Rode, learned APP for the respondent. The applicant, who has been arrested on 1/1/2011 in Crime No.1/2011 registered at Badnera Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed the present application for bail. It is the contention of the learned Advocate Shri Deshpande that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and that there is delay in recording statements of witnesses. He has further argued that the recovery of knife allegedly shown at the instance of the applicant is from open public place. He contended that the applicant is student and there being no criminal antecedents against him, he be released on bail. Perused the case diary. It is seen that in the F.I.R. there is mention to the name of Sunil Siddharth Borkar and it is alleged that the said Sunil Siddharth Borkar had assaulted Ravindra 2 Meshram with knife on his stomach and chest and had caused serious injuries to him. The same person Gajendra Ambadkar, who is the complainant and injured himself has given supplementary statement wherein he has given correct name of the applicant and has stated the same facts. There are, on record statements of various other witnesses including the injured Sagar Landore, who has also attributed the same role to the present applicant. There is disclosure statement made by the present applicant, consequent to which, the knife has been recovered at his instance. The disclosure is to the effect that the applicant has hidden the knife in barren land in an open space from below the grass. There is, therefore, prima facie, evidence against the applicant. Though the charge-sheet has been filed, the injured as well as other eye witnesses are yet to be examined. In my view, this is not a stage appropriate for granting bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.