1appln-365-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 365 of 2010 Samrat Laxman Gaikwad.. .. Applicant. versus. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr A. P. Mundargi, Sr Counsel i/by, for the Applicant. Mr S. N. Gavade, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 20TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application preferred by the the applicant arrested in connection with C.R. No. 539/2008 registered by Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302, 323 read with section 34 of I.P.C. 2. According to the prosecution, on 28th October,2008 the incident of assault on the deceased Ravi Rakhmaji Wadmare took place in the night time. Role assigned to the present applicant-accused No.4 is that he caught hold of 2appln-365-10 the hands of the deceased from behind and other co-accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted the deceased by means of knife and other weapons. The deceased fell on the ground in severely injured condition. The first informant, brother of the deceased, was present. He tried to intervene. He was also assaulted by the accused persons. In order to avoid assault on himself, the first informant also sustained certain injuries. Apart from first informant, there are two more witnesses taking the name of the present applicant as the person holding the deceased from behind, as such assisting the co-accused in the said assault. Apart from these two witnesses, still there are two more witnesses whose statements are brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the applicant pointing out that they did not take the name of the present applicant or anybody for that matter and mentioned that only one accused was there on the spot with iron rod in hand and the victim was lying nearby in severely injured condition. Apparently, said two witnesses, statements of whom were taken shelter of on behalf of the applicant, had seen part of the incident i.e. the latter part, wherein the applicant and other two accused escaped from the spot after the incident was over. Only by taking statements of these two witnesses, the effect of statements of the first informant and two more witnesses, earlier mentioned, cannot be diluted as prima facie there is involvement of the present applicant shown in the offence. 3. Admittedly, immediately within three hours of lodging of the F.I.R all the 3appln-365-10 four accused were arrested. The clothes they were then wearing were taken charge of. From the present applicant the clothes then he was wearing were taken charge of and they were having some red colour stains, probably of blood. However, whether that is incriminating or not is a question of appreciation of evidence after the C.A.report is produced and the matter is put to trial. 4. During the arguments, learned Senior Counsel Shri Mundargi strongly emphasized on the character of the deceased mentioning that deceased was of a Goonda nature and was in illicit relation with the wife of the accused No.1. Still, for the sake of argument, accepting such character of the deceased, it would not be weighed with this Court to allow the present application in favour of the applicant so far as bail is concerned. Under these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case to release the present applicant on bail during the pendency of the trial. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Bail application is 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. Application is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J) RSL-PA