..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2738 OF 2008 Shri.Karim @ Papu Rahman Shaikh. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.175 of 2008 of Devnar Police Station. The said case is under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The eye witnesses have stated that the present applicant along with coaccused Rahim and Faro assaulted the deceased Nanne. At that time, Rahim was armed with hammer. The applicant assaulted the deceased with belt. Faro assaulted with fist blows. The witnesses have stated that ..(2).. all three accused persons including the present applicant assaulted deceased Nanne. The complainant Abdul went to rescue Nanne. At that time, the present applicant also assaulted Abdul with belt. This shows that the applicant shared the common intention of the other accused persons. The investigation is still going on. Hence, looking to all these facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, at this stage. Application for bail is rejected. 4. Liberty to the applicant to prefer a fresh application for bail before the Sessions Court after the charge-sheet is filed. On such application being preferred before the learned Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Court to consider the same afresh and dispose it of on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)