1 Appln No.4947-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4947 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.607 OF 2010 Ahmed Asif Fakih ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Jayant Bardeskar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent  State Mr.A.H.H.Ponda, Advocate, for Intervenor CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The applicant seeks bail in a very peculiar circumstances. The applicant had been arrested on the report by wife that he brandished a gun at her on 11th February, 2010 in his lawyer Advocate Yasin Momin's office and then ran away with the first informant's 2 Appln No.4947-2010 car. The applicant sought bail on the ground that he was suffering from Cancer and the learned Magistrate granted him bail. That was cancelled by an elaborate order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He did not disturb liberty of the applicant for a few days to enable the applicant to knock the door of the higher Court. Accordingly the applicant applied before this Court and by Order dated 11th June, 2010 after elaborately considering the circumstances, this Court found that there was no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted by the learned Magistrate. The applicant took the matter to the Supreme Court which rejected applicant's SLP by Order dated 2nd August, 2010. Thereafter, the applicant has surrendered and is in jail. 3. The applicant approached the Court of Sessions for grant of regular bail. The 3 Appln No.4947-2010 learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the said application and the applicant is now before this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations have been ceased in the context of the matrimonial dispute between the first informant and applicant. He submitted that no gun was found with the applicant and therefore, applicant should be entitled to regular bail, since no serious injury has been caused. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP, the applicant had, apart from brandishing a gun, slashed the forehead of the first informant and also her right palm which resulted in fractures of bones of her forehead. 5. Considering the nature of injuries inflicted, whether the applicant brandished a gun or not would be immaterial. Applicant is not entitled bail. 4 Appln No.4947-2010 6. Criminal Application is rejected. 7. In view of disposal of Criminal Application No.4947 of 2010, Criminal Application No.607 of 2010 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)