IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1067 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1067 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1067 OF 2008 Karim Khatalsab Goudikar and Anr ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr V. M. Thorat, Advocate for the Applicants. Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 9.6.2008. DATED: 9.6.2008. DATED: 9.6.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and material available on record. 3. The applicants have filed present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for bail, after having suffered adverse order dated 21.02.2008 refusing to grant such relief by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sholapur in connection with C.R. No. 234 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 326,504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Bijapur Naka Police Station, Sholapur. 4. The observations made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sholapur while rejecting application are as under:- "The prosecution resisted the application with the say dated 18.2.2008. Learned P.P. Mrs Patil for the State pointed out from the F.I.R. dated 16.10.2007 and the statement of Salim Shaikh dated 16.10.2007 that Salim Shaikh was very much present when the incident had occurred and his intervention in the incident was objected to by the applicant accused Karim Goudikar. These facts and circumstances according to the prosecution do not support the hypothesis of distinct and separate roles in the crime as propounded by the applicant-accused Karim Gaudikar." "A close reading of the FIR dated 16.10.2007 shows that the relations between the deceased Naushad and Karim Gaudikar were certainly not cordial and the assault made by Karim Gaudikar with stick and the co-accused Hasan Pirjade with knife on the body of deceased Naushad were in quick succession at one place of the incident. No where the deceased Naushad made a statement that Salim Shaikh was not present at the said place. FIR dated 16.10.2007 merely reveals a bare statement that his friend Salim Shaikh and Mahadu Bansode removed him to the Civil Hospital after the assailants had left the place of incident. Statement of Salim Ramzan Shaikh dated 16.10.2007 reveals that Salim Shaikh was following the deceased Naushad Shaikh on bicycle and happened to witness the incident; and when he intervened the applicant-accused Karim Gaudikar asked them not to intervene in the matter as deceased Naushad had argued with him two days prior to the incident." 5. I was taken through the police papers and as per the police papers no case is made out to take view other than the view taken by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sholapur. The reasons given by the Sessions Court while rejecting prayer for bail cannot be faulted with. 6. Having seen the prima facie material available on record to connect the present applicants with the alleged offence and the reasons recorded by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sholapur in its order dated 21.2.2008 passed in Criminal Misc.Application No. 165 of 2008 which still hold good, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. 7. In the result, the present application stands rejected. However, observations made in this order are prima facie, they shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)