1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.3445 OF 2008 (JONTY @ PRAKASH SATYADEO PANDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for Applicant. Shri T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondent /State. Shri P.N.Upadhyay, Adv. for Complainant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 24, 2008. 1. This is an application by one Jonty @ Prakash Pande, who has been in jail since 21st January, 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Penal Code. The victim had suffered undoubtedly some simple injuries but by fire arm. Medical certificate which was made available for my perusal, shows that there were gun shot injuries. The fact that the injuries were simple does not have any significance in the face of the observations of the Medical Officer that they were gun shot injuries. They could as well have serious implications had the weapon been properly aimed or had the target not moved. Therefore, merely because the 2 injuries are simple in nature it cannot be said that the offence is not serious. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at II(2001)CCR 269 (SC) where the Court observed as under : “1. The appellant is involved in an offence under Section 307 of the IPC. He was arrested on 18.6.2000. The High Court rejected his application for bail as per the impugned order. 2. When we perused the details of the injury sustained by the victim we too felt, initially, that High Court was justified in rejecting bail for appellant. Nonetheless we take into account the fact that the victim survived and as on today there is no prospect of the offence being escalated to higher counts. We also take into account the fact that the appellant has been in jail for nearly eight months by now. Learned Counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted that in case this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail he must be subjected to some stringent conditions, one of them being that the appellant shall not enter within the limits of village Kiwale. We, therefore, order the appellant to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for such amount as may be fixed by the Trial Court. He shall not enter within the boundaries of the village Kiwale without permission from the Trial Court until disposal of the case. This appeal is disposed of.” 3 2. It is true that in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court released the concerned accused on bail, though he was alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code observing that the victim had survived and therefore, there was no prospect of the offence being escalated to higher counts and that the victim was in jail for about eight months. However, the other context in which the offence was committed is not discernible from the judgment. It could have been even a case of fight between two brothers, two neighbours etc., whereas in the present case, the crime is altogether of different nature. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Anil alias B.B. Marne Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 1995(2) Br.Cr. C. 144 where too this Court had released the offender alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code on bail. In that case the accused was alleged to have assaulted the complainant and his brother with knife. Again the factual context, in which the offence was committed, is not 4 clear, and rightly so, since in order on bail application all these things may not be there. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that one Idris Khan co-accused has already been released on bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 17.06.2008 and therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 5. It has been mentioned on behalf of the respondent/ State that an application for cancellation of bail of said Idris Khan has already been moved before the Court of Session, since Idris Khan was again arrested in connection with another crime for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code. There is also an application by the complainant raising objection to release the applicant on bail, stating that the accomplices of the applicant have been threatening the witnesses and releasing the applicant on bail will result in tampering the evidence. 5 6. In these circumstances, though the applicant's co- accused Idris Khan has already been released on bail, it would not be proper to release the applicant. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.