1 APPA 451/11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2007 Tanaji @ Munna Sitaram Chorge : Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. Mr.Vikas Shivarkar for the Applicant. Ms. S V Gajre, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 10th JUNE 2011 P.C. 1 Heard. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1 Baramati, Dist Pune has convicted the Accused in Sessions Case No.33 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years respectively. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced with two other accused persons. 2 By filing Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2007 all the original accused persons have challenged the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2004 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1 Baramati, Dist.Pune. The said Appeal came to be admitted by the Division Bench on 27th February 2007. The Registry informs that the Accused persons had filed Criminal 2 APPA 451/11 Application No.177 of 2007. By an order dated 11th June 2007 (Coram : D G Deshpande & Smt.Nishita Mhatre, JJ) the said application was allowed to be withdrawn. The accused persons thereafter filed another Criminal Application No.997 of 2007 for bail. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Mr.Radhakrishnan & Smt.Roshan Dalvi JJ) passed following order :- “None appear for the applicant. APP Mr. A R Patil, present for the Respondent. Hence stands dismissed for default.” 3 Thereafter one of the accused Kalpana Mohan Dhumal filed Criminal Application No.756 of 2007. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Smt.Ranjana Desai & Smt.Roshan Dalvi, JJ) by its order dated 1st August 2007 released the Accused Kalpana Mohan Dhumal on bail and disposed of her application. 4 In the mean while accused Mohammadali Badshaha Sayyed and the Applicant Tanaji Laxman Chorge filed a separate Appeal which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2007. The said Appeal came to be admitted by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : R M S Khandeparkar & S R Sathe, JJ) on 27th August 2007. The present Application for bail was filed by the Applicant Tanaji Chorge on 23/3/2011. 5 The learned counsel for the Applicant referred to the copies of the deposition attached to the present application and the observations made by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Baramati, Dist.Pune. 3 APPA 451/11 6 With the assistance of the learned counsel for the Applicant we have perused the evidence of the eye witness Arun Jagnnath Gaikwad (PW 1) and the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr.Eknath Irappa Chandanshive (PW 2) and other material evidence on record. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the charge against the applicant is that along with other accused, who committed the murder of Mohan Dhumal while they all were on pilgrimage travenlling in a jeep allegedly driven by the eye witness (PW 1), the present applicant was with them.. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is variance in the oral evidence and the medical evidence. According to the medical evidence the deceased died due to consumpmption of Organiophosperous compound i.e. diamethomic compund (Rogar) whereas as per the prosecution case, the deceased died due to strangulation. He further submits that there is abnormal delay in lodging the FIR and recording the statements of the eye witnesses, which casts serious doubt in respect of the credibility of the prosecution case and the evidence of the witnesses. The learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that one of the co-accused Kalpana Mohan Dhumal was released on bail by this Court. The Applicant was on bail during trial and the appeal would take considerable time for final hearing, therefore, the application for bail be considered and the applicant be released on bail. 7 The learned APP raised objection to the prayer made by the Applicant for releasing him on bail. The learned APP submits that that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not shaken. The Prosecution has 4 APPA 451/11 examined the person running the STD Booth and grocery shop. The prosecution has brought clinching evidence on record. The minute details of the prosecution evidence would be considered at the time of final hearing. 8 We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. We have noticed that there is a prima face case made out against the Applicant by the prosecution. The evidence of the eye witness and other circumstances goes against the Applicant. The prosecution has brought on record other relevant circumstances which demonstrate involvement of the Applicant in crime. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that under mis-representation joint bail application came to be filed. He therefore, submits that the present application be treated as the first bail application filed by the Applicant. The record does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant on this count. We are, therefore, not inclined to release the Applicant Tanaji Laxman Chorge on bail. The present Application stands rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)