1reg-appln-815-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.815/2010 Bhimashankar Revansiddha Birajdar v. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr V.V.Purvant, for the applicant. Mr P.S.Hingorani, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 18TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant - accused arrested in CR No.59/2009 registered with Valsang Police Station, District Sholapur. The applicant is facing charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Allegations against the applicant are that out of some previous rivalry there was assault on the father of the complainant in the evening of 4th September, 2009 near some agricultural land. The complainant happened to be on the spot on motor-cycle while he was searching his father who had not returned home from his usual work at some sugar factory. While on the way in search of his father, the 2reg-appln-815-10 complainant saw the incident in which the present applicant along with eight other – co accused were assaulting his father. Role assigned to the present applicant is that he was holding a dagger in his hand and assaulting the father of the complainant. The other co-accused were having other weapons, and also assaulted the deceased by means of such weapons and also by means of a stone. Post mortem report show ten injuries sustained by the deceased. All those injuries are said to be incised wounds. Injury No.1 is the crush injury to the head and in the final diagnosis of the death it was mentioned that as crush injury to the head. During the arguments, learned Mr Purvant for the applicant submitted that this is the cause of death and it is probably by use of the stone to crush the head and this role is not attributed to the present applicant as allegedly he was holding the dagger. This argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there are multiple injuries on the person of the deceased as mentioned above and probably the final cause of death must have been mentioned “due to crush injury of the head”. Moreover, the implication of Section 34 is required to be construed while considering involvement of the present accused. This is more so, when version of the first informant is very specific as to the presence of the applicant armed with the weapon and assaulting the complainant’s father. 3. Apart from the above, there are other three witnesses who had seen the incident and also taken the name of the present applicant as one of the assailants. 4. During the arguments, learned A.P.P.for the State brought to the notice of this Court that apparently the clothes of the present applicant were found having blood stains when he was arrested on the next day of the incident. He further submitted that during the pendency of the present bail application charge is already 3reg-appln-815-10 framed and the matter is likely to be taken up for final hearing. 5. Considering the prima facie strong evidence against the applicant, this is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail. In this view of the matter, present application is disposed of by the following order:- :ORDER: (a) Bail application No. 815/2010 is hereby rejected; (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J)