1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2351 of 2009 Ejaz Khan 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 F.T. Mirza, Adv for applicant Ms S. Wandile, APP for State. Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 30th July 2009 1. Heard Mr F.T. Mirza, learned counsel for applicant and Ms Sharda Wandile, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 3/09 registered with Police Station, Mangrulpeer for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 16.1.2009 when Nayeem Mannan was going by motor-cycle towards his house, accused Sajid Khan pelted stone at him due to which Nayeem fell down. Thereafter Sajid Khan hit him by a sword and other accused including present applicant inflicted blows by means of 2 the respective weapons held by them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the relevant day, applicant was on his duty as a Talathi and he is totally innocent. He claimed that on the day of incident at about 02.00 pm applicant apprehended a tractor of one Pandit Bhoyar carrying miner mineral illegally; panchanama was carried out and the Tahsildar imposed fine of Rs. 1750/- on said Pandit Bhoyar. 4. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while opposing bail application, contended that one Harish Bhagat has sworn in an affidavit on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- stating on oath that on 16.1.2009, in the morning at about 10.00 am, the present applicant took him to his house and directed him to prepare a panchanama regarding seizure of miner mineral from one Pandit Bhoyar. However, at that time, according to learned APP, Pandit Bhoyar was not present nor he has signed and this fact, therefore, falsifies the contention of the applicant. Without prejudice to this, learned APP submits that plea of alibi could be available to the applicant while facing trial on merit and the same cannot be of any help at this stage for the purpose of seeking bail. She submitted that there are eye witnesses whose statements clearly implicate the applicant also. She further submits that investigation is in progress and prayed for rejection of the application. 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage seeks permission to withdraw the application. Learned APP opposes the prayer. Be that as it may, since the investigation is still in progress and charge-sheet has not been filed, applicant is permitted to withdraw the application. Hence, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. Judge. Hsj