1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1173 OF 2010 Deepak Bhila Pardeshi ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri R.C.Patil, advocate for the applicant Smt. Vaishali Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri R.C.Patil, advocate for the applicant and Smt. Vaishali Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant for regular bail in connection with CR No. 67 of 2010, registered at Azadnagar police station, Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, r/w Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, since the applicant was arrested thereunder on 17.2.2010 and is under judicial custody presently. 2 3 At the out set, it is to be noted that the applicant had preferred two successive bail applications before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule, but same were rejected by the said court, and thereafter the applicant has preferred the present application before this court. 4 It appears that the offence was registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Sandeep Vitthal Shardul on 11.2.2010 in respect of occurrence of the incident at about 17.15 p.m. on the same day. 5 On perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is seen that the name of the applicant has been reflected therein and specific role and overt act has been attributed to him during the occurrence of the incident and it is also evident from the said complaint that the present applicant assaulted the complainant Sandeep on his head by sword i.e. the applicant assaulted the complainant by deadly weapon on the vital part of his body. 6 On perusal of the investigation papers and more particularly the injury certificate, it is seen that the complainant Sandeep sustained the head injury/grievous injury. Moreover, the investigation papers also disclose that one sword and base ball stick were recovered at the instance of the applicant under the memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Besides that, the investigation papers also disclose that there is one eye witness to the occurrence of the 3 incident, who substantiated the contents of the complaint lodged by the complainant. 7 Thus having the comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that there is prima facie evidence against the applicant. Moreover, investigation is incomplete and charge sheet has not been filed. Hence, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail, at least at this stage. 8 In the result, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of merits, and therefore, same stands dismissed. 9 The above observations are prima facie and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/cr1173.10