1 BA 1125-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1125 OF 2011 Vijay Dattu Kanugade .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1056 OF 2011 Nilesh Vitthal Marne .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.M.S.Mohite i/b. Mr.V.S.Kapse, Advocate, for the Applicant in Cri.Appln.No.1056 of 2011 Mr.A.J.Kandarkar, Advocate, for the Applicant in BA No.1125 of 2011 Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. These two applications by the applicants, who were seen by eye witnesses assaulting one Hiraman Kamble, who died as a 2 BA 1125-2011 result of 28 injuries found on his person. The learned Counsel for the applicant  Nilesh Marne submits that the first informant had changed his version about the assailants twice. The first informant Nandu was not present on the spot. The learned Counsel for the applicant further states that the victim's nephew, who claimed to have seen the incident was present with the victim's wife at the hospital where police were also present and therefore, there was no question of wrong names being given. He also points out that the versions of victim's widow Alka and nephew Vikas is doubtful, since it could not be a coincidence that both the victim as well as Vikas and Alka came at the same place where the assault was going on at the same time. Therefore, if they were really present at the time of assault on 19th October, 2010, their statements could have been recorded before 21st October, 2010. He also points out that an independent witness Balasaheb Namdeo Ovhal, 3 BA 1125-2011 who was present at the spot did not identify the applicant Nilesh at the T.I.Parade. The learned Counsel for the applicant - Vijay Kanugade states that the statement implicating Vijay Kanugade came to be recorded after Vijay was arrested by the police. However, Vijay has been identified by Balasaheb Ovhal. Incidently, Balasaheb Ovhal had also stated that he had seen witness Alka, victim's wife, at the spot and she had fallen unconscious possibly on seeing the incident of assault. The question as to whether Alka and Vikas had any business to be at the spot or could have seen the incident, would be examined at the trial. Since there are three eye wintesses who have seen the applicants assaulting the victim, there is no question of applicants being bailed out. 3. Criminal Applications stand rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)