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. 4517 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4517 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4517 OF 2008 Mohammed Rafi Gud Badsha Maindargi ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Sudhir Hulli for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2009 DATED : JANUARY 22, 2009 DATED : JANUARY 22, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148, 149 and other related offences under the IPC. 3. It is alleged that the applicant alongwith others came to the house of the complainant, the other accused were armed with sickles and they assaulted the deceased with sickles as a result of which she succumbed to injuries. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted - 2 - that no role has been attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that while summarising the said offence, the complainant who was the eye witness to the said incident has also taken the name of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the other two witnesses viz. the girl of the complainant has referred to the applicant as "Gud bacha" He submitted that the real name of the applicant is Mohammad Rafiq Gud Badsha Maindargi". He submitted that the applicant is a businessman and income-tax payer and he had no grudge against the deceased and even if it is presumed that the applicant was present at that place, he did not share the common intention of the accused. It was submitted that though bloodstained clothes were recovered from him, the applicant had taken accused no.1 to the hospital and it is possible that his clothes may have been bloodstained. 5. It is not possible to accept the submission. All the accused had barged into the house of the complainant and though no role is attributed to the present applicant, it is obvious that he shared common - 3 - intention of the other assailants who actually assaulted the deceased with sickle. The applicant’s name also has been mentioned by the said daughter of the complainant. Apart from these two eye witnesses, other witnesses have seen the applicant entered the said house and they also witnessed him running from their house alongwith other accused. The deceased was brutally murdered and the applicant was present in the room, therefore, it is obvious that he shared the common intention alongwith accused. It is submitted that the four other co-accused have been released on bail. 6. The learned APP submits that the four accused have been granted bail because they were juveniles and on merits of the case. 7. In my view, therefore, at this stage, it is not possible to accept the submission made by the Counsel for the applicant. 8. The application is rejected. The hearing of the trial is expedited. If the trial is not over within - 4 - reasonable period of time, the applicant may apply for bail. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)