:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.491 OF 2006 Ajay Uttam Kamathe ....Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. --- Mr. J.B. Kocheta for the applicant. Mr. R.Y. Mirza, APP for the State. -- CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATE: DATE: DATE: 22nd February 22nd February 22nd February 2006 2006 2006 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with the offence punishable under section 302, 324, 325, 505 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered vide C.R. No. 297 at Loni Kalbhor Police Station, District - Pune. 3. The prosecution case is that the deceased was assaulted by the applicant and the other accused with lethal weapons and, as a result, the deceased died. The prosecution case is that one Laxmi Jain Dhavre had :2: filed a complaint at Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune against Satish Dnyaneshwar Jagtap - accused no.1 and Pradip Rudrappa Birajdar for the offence punishable under section 376, 323, 405 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and that the deceased had given evidence in favour of the said Laxmi Jain Dhavre. However, the accused was acquitted in the said case and on the date of the incident, while the deceased was sitting at the site of the offence, the applicant questioned him why he had helped the said Laxmi Jain Dhavre and, at that time, the applicant and four others came there and all of them assaulted the deceased with lethal weapons. It is submitted that there is variance in the initial statement which was made by the first informant and some changes have been made in the supplementary statement. It is submitted that in the said statement no overtact had been attributed to the present applicant. 4. I have perused the FIR and the statement of the eye witnesses and the eye witnesses have stated the name of the present applicant and some of the eye witnesses have attributed active role to the applicant in the commission of the said offence. Though there is a discrepancy regarding the weapon which is used by the applicant, that by itself would not be sufficient :3: to discard their testimony at this stage. The applicant alongwith accused No.1 killed the person who had deposed against the accused No.1 in a rape case. In my view, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The application for bail is, therefore, rejected. V.M. V.M. V.M. KANADE, J. KANADE, J. KANADE, J.