..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1865 OF 2008 Sandip Barku Bhosale. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mrs.P.U.Badadare, Adv. for applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.595 of 2006 of Mulund Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. 3. The eye witness Vitthal Hingne who is also an injured witness has clearly stated that the applicant along with five other accused persons assaulted him and his brothers with chopper, knife and sword. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that Vijay Intiwal and Latesh Alembar ..(2).. have been granted bail and the case of the applicant is same to that of Vijay and Latesh. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that dying declaration of Jagdish (deceased) came to be recorded and Jagdish did not name Vijay and Latesh hence bail came to be granted to coaccused Vijay and Latesh, whereas Jagdish in his dying declaration has clearly implicated the present applicant. 4. The learned APP, on instructions, states that the trial has commenced and six witnesses have been examined and only two witnesses remain to be examined. Looking to the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)