1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2255/2009 (Nilesh Ramesh manthanwar vs. State of Maharashtra) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr M B Naidu Adv.for applicant Mrs S.S.,Wandile, APP for Respondent -State CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 06 th August, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is praying for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 542/2008 reported at Sakkardara Police Station Nagpur for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC, which was registered on the basis of complaint by Rajkiran Dahiwale. Perusal of the FIR i.e. complaint shows that first informant stated that at the time of the incident four persons including the present applicant had came near the godown of the first informant. One of them, by name, Kailash Lodase had asked the first informant to stop the business of selling fruits by handcart in front of Ayurvedic College. He had also asked him to vacate the godown by slapping him twice. Brother of the first informant had seen said Kailash assaulting the first informant. Therefore, he questioned Kailash as to why he is assaulting the first informant. At that time the other co-accused by name Balya caught hold of brother of the first informant and Ashish, one of the co-accused, assaulted him by means of slaps and fists. When the first informant questioned him as to why he is beaten to his brother, at that time Kailash one of the co-accused had took out the knife and stabbed on abdomen as well as on chest. After this, the brother ran towards the first informant, the first informant ran towards the square and thereafter searched for an autorickshaw to take his brother 2 to the Hospital. By the time he returned near the godown, he saw blood lying in front of the godown and after reaching the Medical hospital he came to know that brother Rajkiran died on account of injuries caused on his abdomen and chest by means of knife. Thus, he lodged the compliant against four persons including the present applicant. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that in view of the ruling in Janu @ Billa Malappa Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2577, the applicant is entitiled for bail, with stringent conditions. It does appear that the applicant in that case had not assaulted the deceased; some people had tried to intervene and applicant had only threatened them not to intervene at the point of knife . Furthermore the accused had not come to the area of the deceased and the incident had occurred when deceased and two others went to the area of the accused and demanded the explanation. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of bail was granted with stringent conditions. 4. Learned APP for the Respondent-State contended that active role at the time of incident, has been attributed to the applicant-Nilesh, that he along with Balya had caught hold of the deceased while one Ashish and they were assaulting him by means of slaps and fists blows and co-accused Kailash had taken out the knife and stabbed on the abdomen as well as chest and as the result of which, Kiran died. Thus, prima facie it appears that all the four persons were sharing common intention. It is for the trial Court to examine on the basis of evidence that would be led on merits. However, prima facie material do indicate that the applicant is not entitled for benefit of bail. No case is made out for bail. Criminal Application is rejected. The trial Court to expedite the trial. JUDGE. sahare