ba-905-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.905 OF 2011 Sadik Mohamad Shaikh and ors. Mr.Immu @ Imran Sattar Shaikh Mr.Munna @ Asphak Rafiq Sayyed Mr.Salim Kasam Tamboli ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Smt.Farkhana Shah, Adv.for the Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the Respondent State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 14 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the F.I.R. and all the other statements recorded during investigation. The first informant-Vicky Pardeshi speaks about the incident. He is an eye witness to the incident. He mentioned only about the Applicant No.1-Sadik, Applicant No. 2-Immu @ Imran and Applicant No.4-Salim as the assailants. In the printed prescribed proforma of the First Information Report also there is a mention of only three assailants. The First Informant in the F.I.R. has given specific role to all the said three assailants. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that as per the First Informant, the assailants were three and that they were the Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4. 3. Later on, the Applicant No.3-Munna @ Asphak was also said to be one of the assailants. 4. The case of the Investigating Agency is that the Applicants were the accused in respect of the case of murder of one Anil Pardeshi-the uncle of the First Informant. The ba-905-11.sxw 2 Dixit Applicants were acquitted after trial. According to the First Informant, after their acquittal, the Applicants were entertaining grudge against the First Informant and his relatives. Under the circumstances, the possibility of the Applicant No.3 having been named in the case merely because he was an accused in the said previous case cannot be ruled out. 5. Considering that he was not initially named as the assailant and as a matter of fact that the assailants were four was also not mentioned, the case of the Applicant No.3-Munna is required to be treated differently from that of the other Applicants. 6. In any case, the Applicant No.3 is in custody since 9th February 2011. 7. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I think it fit to release him on bail. 8. As regards the other applicants, considering the existence of a prima facie case against them and the antecedents, I am not inclined to release any of them on bail. 9. The Bail Application is partly allowed. 10. The Applicant No.3 is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in like amount. 11. The application, so far it relates to the other applicants, is rejected. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]