..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3086 OF 2008 1. Mr.Bhushan Govind Chaudhary, 2. Mr.Rafique Ibrahim Shaikh, & 3. Mr.Ashok Hanumant Vishe. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.A.R.Pitale, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th September, 2008. DATED : 17th September, 2008. DATED : 17th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-26 of 2008 of Kinhavali Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 302, 307 of IPC. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicants has ..(2).. submitted that the applicants were not present at the time of the incident. No doubt the applicants were not present at the time of the incident. However, the statements of the eye witnesses show that there was a dispute between the applicants and the deceased Yogesh in respect of land. The witnesses have stated that on account of the said dispute the applicants told the actual assailants to finish the deceased. This fact has been stated by the complainant as well as other witnesses including Mushtaq. 4. The learned APP has pointed out that applicant No.1 - Bhushan is involved in four other cases of Kinvhali police station i.e. C.R.No.I-54 of 2004 U/sec.147, 148, 149, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, C.R.No.I-10 of 2004 U/sec. 395, 397, 341, 427 of IPC, C.R.No.I-59 of 2004 U/sec. 147, 148, 149, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, & C.R.No.I-50 of 2006 U/sec. 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. As far as applicant No.2 Rafique Ibrahim Shaikh is concerned he is involved in three cases pertaining to Kinvhali police station i.e. C.R.No.I-59 of 2004 U/sec. 147, 148, 149, ..(3).. 452, 336, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, C.R.No.I-40 of 2006 U/sec. 325, 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, & C.R.No.50 of 2006 U/sec. 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 5. Looking to the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)