1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4853 OF 2009 Janu Rama Mali .... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra .... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b Ms. Sunita Sharma for the applicant. Mr. Nivas Kamble for the Complainant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 402, 307, 325, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 4 and 27 of the 2 Arms Act and under section 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act which is registered by Shil-Dighar Police Station, District Thane vide C.R. No.I-171 of 2008 dated 29/10/2008. 3. Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that name of the applicant has been mentioned for the first time on 9/11/2008 in the statement of Bhagwan Gondhali. He invited my attention to the statement of eye witnesses and submitted that none of the eye witnesses has stated the name of the applicant as a person who was present at the time of incident and, as such, it is submitted that therefore these eye witnesses who were themselves injured in the incident have not named the applicant and only for the first time on 9/11/2008, this witness has stated that two other persons viz Mangal Pawshe and Jaydev Gondhali and the present applicant who had told the boys that they should teach them a lesson and, thereafter, the said accused assaulted them. It is submitted that that the charge-sheet has been filed and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. It is submitted that the name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR and that in the statement of Bhagwan his name has been falsely implicated after almost 10 to 2 days. It is, therefore, submitted that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 3 4. It is not possible to accept this submission. The eye witnesses whose statements are recorded do not mention the presence of the present applicant at the scene of offence. However, the fact remains that one of the witnesses has mentioned the name of the applicant as an instigator at whose instance other assailants have assaulted. In my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail since the name of the applicant has been mentioned by one of the witnesses who attributes role of instigation to the applicant. 5. Application is therefore rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.)