1 APPA 696/11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 696 OF 2011 IN APPEAL NO.269 OF 2011 Chandan @ Chandya Ramchandra Lokhande : Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. ALONG WITH APPEAL NO.189 OF 2011 Sunil @ Shendi Rajaram Mandavkar : Appellant. versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. ALONG WITH APPEAL NO.261 OF 2011 Suhas Datta Panchal and anr. : Appellants. versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi for the Applicant. Mr. P S Hingorani, APP for the State. Mr.Jayant Bardeskar for the Appellants in Appeal No.261/11 CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & K U CHANDIWAL, JJ DATE : O7TH JULY 2011 P.C. 1 Heard. 2 Applicant - Original Accused No.3 Chandan Lokhande was convicted along with other three for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the 2 APPA 696/11 Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.826 of 1993 and sentenced him to suffer R I for two years with find and under Section 302 r/w 34 sentenced to suffer R I for life and fine. Original Accused No.5 Mohan Ramchandra Bane was acquitted. 3 The prosecution case is that riots occurred on account of demolition of Babri Masjid. In the said riots murder of brother of Accused No.2 was committed at Deonar. Therefore Accused No.2 beat her father deceased Gani Mulla Shaikh and he threatened her to vacate the room occupied by her and her family. Therefore a complainant was lodged by Mrs.Rubia Gani Shaikh, the deceased mother of the complainant with the police station. On 8/1/1993 accused No.2 Sanjay Mandavkar visited complainant's house and told her father to vacate room till evening, failing which he would finish him. 4 On 10/1/1993 at about 10 pm the complainant along with her parents were sleepping in the house, at that time stones were pelted on her house and somebody knocked door, therefore all of them woke up in a frightened condition. Some persons broke open the door and 3-4 persons entered into the house consisting of Accused No.1 Suhas who was holding Gupti, Accused No.2 Sanjay who was holding sword, her neighbour Ramesh who was holding sword and they dragged her father out of house. Therefore her mother intervened and tried to resist the assailants and requested them not to beat the father of complainant. The prosecution case is that the parents of PW Nos.2 and 3 were killed by the accused. 3 APPA 696/11 5 The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused submits that even according to the prosecution case and version of PW No.3, the applicant/accused No.3 Chandan was holding club in his hand while he entered into house of the complainant. The learned counsel submits that there is a discrepancy in the evidence in respect of recovery of article stick/knife from the applicant/accused. Though the weapon allegedly recovered at the behest of the applicant having blood stains on it, the recovery panchanama did not bear signature of the applicant. PW No.8 Pancha was declared hostile by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, the applicant was on bail during trial, his name was not mentioned in the FIR. Considering all these circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicant prays for releasing the applicant on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of appeal. 6 The learned APP appearing for the State submits that the applicant and other accused were convicted for a serious offence where two persons were murdered. There are strong circumstances which are incriminating in nature brought on record by the prosecution. Evidence of PW Nos.2 and 3 coupled with other circumstances shows involvement of the applicant in commission of crime. 7 We have perused the record placed before us for the purpose of consideration of this bail application. We find that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that applicant/original accused No.3 Chandan was present along with other accused persons when they entered into the house of the complainant. 4 APPA 696/11 The accused were armed with deadly weapons. Applicant/accused Chandan was holding club according to this witness. The infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant occurring in the evidence in respect of the applicant No. 3 could be appreciated at the time of final hearing of appeal. At this stage, we find that a strong prima face case is made out by the prosecution against the applicant/accused No.3. 8 The learned counsel appearing for the applicant fairly states that Criminal Application No.417 of 2011 filed by Accused No.4 Sunil Mandavkar was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B H Marlapalle and A M Thipsay, JJ ) by an order dated 5/4/2011. We have perused the said order. 9 Considering the facts of the present case and the circumstances surrounding and the evidence brought on record, we are not inclined to release Applicant/Original Accused No.3 Chandan Ramchandra Lokhande on bail. Application is rejected. (K U CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)