- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 603 OF 2008 Salim Shaukat Shaikh Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Sanjay Bhatia, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the respondent. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 13, 2008. PC 1. The applicant seeks bail in connection C.R. No. 172 of 2006 registered with Dharavi Police Station for the offences punishable under section 307, 120-B of I.P.C. read with section 4 and 25 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case is that applicant assaulted the injured Sukhdev Kedare on account of dispute arising out of borrowed money. Though the injured survived, he was required to be admitted in Intensive Care Unit of the hospital for two days and in the hospital for 6-7 days. The injured himself is an eye witness and has named the - 2 - applicant as the assailant. I have also perused the copies of the statements of the witnesses annexed to the application. They prima-facie connect the applicant to the crime. Thus, there is prima-facie material about the complicity of the applicant to the crime. The crime is of serious nature, punishable with imprisonment for life or for a term upto ten years. 3. After the crime, the applicant was absconding for a period of 13 months. The assault took place on 19th August 2006 and the applicant was apprehended only on 17th October 2007. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Sanjay Sanjay @ Bablu @ Keja Vs. State of Gujarat [2002 ALL MR @ Bablu @ Keja Vs. State of Gujarat [2002 ALL MR @ Bablu @ Keja Vs. State of Gujarat [2002 ALL MR (Cri) (Cri) (Cri) 468 (S.C.)] 468 (S.C.)] 468 (S.C.)] and submitted that the fact that the applicant was absconding is not relevant for the purpose of refusing bail. In that case, the Supreme Court has observed that the accused was likely to abscond as he was hailing from a different State was not a ground for rejecting bail. The present case is distinguishable on facts. There is no mere apprehension that applicant would abscond but in fact he had absconded and was arrested only after 13 months. The learned APP submitted that possibility of the applicants absconding again cannot be ruled out. The submission deserves acceptance. - 3 - 4. Learned APP submitted that applicant is a habitual offender and crime No. 139 of 2006, has been registered with Dharavi Police Station against him for the offence punishable under 387 of I.P.C. and Session Case in respect thereof is pending. Learned APP submits that applicant is a dangerous person involved in the offence of extortion of money. In my view that is an additional ground for rejecting bail. 6. Taking into consideration all these facts I do not think it proper to grant bail at this stage to the applicant. Hence, the application for bail is rejected. Sd/- [ D. G. KARNIK, J.]