IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1094 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1094 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1094 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2008 Abdul Sattar Mohd.Yusuf Sota ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Jahangir A. Khan for the Applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years. The applicant is in jail since last one and half years. 3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant had assaulted the deceased who was the Secretary of the chawl who used to collect water tax from the tenants. The prosecution case is that the applicant herein - 2 - assaulted the deceased with an iron bar and gave one blow on the backside of the skull as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The other accused also assaulted the mother, son and daughter of the deceased. There are three eye witnesses to the said incident. 4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the wife and the daughter as also the son were inside the house and they did not see who had assaulted the deceased. He invited my attention to the cross-examination of PW1 and as also the evidence of PW3. It is no doubt true that there is some discrepancy in the statement of PW1. In the examination-in-chief, she has stated that she had seen the applicant assaulting her husband with an iron rod and in the cross-examination, she has stated she was inside the house and she did not see the applicant giving the blow on the skull of the deceased. However, the evidence of PW4 Govind Maheshwari is very clear on this point wherein he has stated that the accused no.1 gave a blow with an iron bar on the skull when he tried to separate - 3 - and rescue his wife who was being assaulted by other accused. No case, therefore, is made out for grant of bail. His earlier application was allowed to be withdrawn and liberty was granted to file a fresh application. 5. The application for bail, therefore, is rejected. Liberty, however, is granted to the applicant to apply for bail if the appeal is not heard within a reasonable period of time. 6. The application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)