IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1481 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1481 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1481 OF 2008 Mohan Premji Patel. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. C.K.Pendse for the applicant. S.R.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 6th May 2008. DATED: 6th May 2008. DATED: 6th May 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.I-56/2008 registered with Kalyan Taluka Police Station, Kalyan for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 352, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The trial Court has rejected the bail application of the applicant vide its order dated 2nd May, 2008 on the ground that some of the accused persons are absconding and recorded findings as under: "5. Heard advocate Shri. Sarode appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri. Gaikar APP appearing on behalf of State. Perused the police papers of this crime and documents on record. It is a fact that there is dispute of landed property in between the owners and complainant and the incident has been taken place on account of dispute of landed property. I have perused the medical reports of the injured persons and also the statement of witnesses. The FIR discloses the name of the applicant and accordingly, as per statement of witnesses on the say of applicant, the commission of offence has been taken place. Considering the dispute of land in between the parties, the role of the applicant is prima facie appearing in this crime. If the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, the investigation of the crime will be hampered. The offence under section 307 is serious offence. One of the injured is still admitted in the hospital. Other co-accused are shown absconding. So considering these facts and serious nature of the offence and the considering the investigation of this crime, I hold that anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected ....." 4. The learned A.P.P. has opposed this application contending that there are fur eye witnesses. Having seen the material available on record and in the light of the findings recorded by the trial Court, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. No case is made out to take contrary view than the view taken by the trial Court in its order dated 2nd May, 2008. 5. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE