1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2430 of 2009 Aga Khan v. State of Maharashtra and anr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr V.M. Deshpande, Adv for applicant Mr A. Parihar, AGP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 28th July 2009 1. Heard Mr V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for applicant and Mr A. Parihar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State. Applicant has prayed for grant of bail in conection with Crime No. 48/2009 reported at Police Station, Kotwali, Amravati for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 17.2.2009 accused Firoz Khan on altercation with deceased Faruq, inflicted blow of knife on the right thigh of Faruq while applicant Aga Khan held Faruq from behind. Faruq succumbed to the injury. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that it was a single blow inflicted by main accused Firoz Khan which unfortunately resulted into death of Faruq. He contended that applicant Aga Khan was barely holding collar of deceased and he did not take part in the 2 actual commission of crime. Learned counsel for the applicant pressed into service judgment of the Supreme Court in Munna v. State of UP reported in AIR 1993 SC 278 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prashant v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 All MR (Cri) 1213. 4. Learned APP, on the other hand, opposed the bail application. He submits that post-mortem report clearly reveals that there were four injuries and the applicant is equally responsible to cause death of Faruq. Not only this, but the wife and son of deceased have received threats from applicant’s side of dire consequences. He prayed for rejection of bail application. 5. There are eye witnesses to incident who have categorically named the present applicant in commission of crime. By holding Faruq from behind, applicant facilitated infliction of knife blows on the person of Faruq which resulted into his death. There can be no quarrel over legal proposition that where the accused is held guilty with the aid of Section 34 IPC, it is possible for the Court to impose different sentence than the one imposed on the main accused, as is laid down in the cases pressed into service by learned counsel for applicant. However, in the judgments cited by learned counsel for applicant, Courts were dealing with the cases on merit and not at the pre-trial stage. Judgments cited by learned counsel for applicant, therefore, cannot be of any help to him at this stage. 6. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the application. It is accordingly rejected. Since the charge-sheet is already filed, Trial Court is expected to take up the trial on merit as early as possible. 3 Judge. Hsj