dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.628 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.628 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.628 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.544 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.544 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.544 OF 2008 1. Shavareppa Gundappa Birajdar, 2. Laxmiputra Gundappa BIrajdar, 3. Hanmant Gundappa Birajdar, 4. Yellappa Somanna Pujari, 5. Irappa Kamanna Dodmani, 6. Jagu Basanna Birajdar Applicants (Orig.Accused Nos. 1 to 6) Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent. ALONG ALONG ALONG WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.630 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.630 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.630 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.545 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.545 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.545 OF 2008 1. Sidharam Panchappa Patil, 2. Moula Abbas Alli Nakedar, 3. Basu Vithoba Patil, 4. Revanappa Somanna Pujari, 5. Basha Hasan Mujawar, 6. Hanmant Shivyogiappa Pujari, 7. Pandit Shivyogiappa Pujari, 8. Baswant Nagendra Patil Applicants (Orig.Accused Nos.7 to 14) vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/b.Mr.V.V.Purwant for the Applicants. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 19th January, 2009. : 19th January, 2009. : 19th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. The occurrence took place on 05.07.1999 and Accused nos.1 to 14 were convicted under Section 302 ( 2 ) read with 149 of Indian Penal Code on 27.06.2001 in Sessions Case No.221/1999. Appeals were filed against the conviction by the Accused before the High Court in 2001. These Appeals were allowed and conviction and sentence was set aside. However, the matter was remanded on 14.12.2006. On remand, they were again convicted on 29.02.2008 under Section 302 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life. 2. The bail application no.628/2008 has been filed on behalf of original accused nos. 1 to 6 and bail application no.630/2008 has been filed on behalf of original accused nos. 7 to 14. 3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the applicants that accused nos.7 to 14 in Application No.630/08 in Cri.Appeal No.545/08 remained on bail during the trial. They also remained on bail during the Appeal and also during the period when the matter went back to the learned Sessions Judge on remand, they were taken into custody and again were convicted by Order dated 29.02.2008. 4. While going through these facts, we feel that these are cases in which bail can be granted to the ( 3 ) present applicants being accused nos. 1 to 6 in application no.628/08 in Cri.Appeal no.544/08 and accused nos. 7 to 14 in application no.630/08 in Cri.Appeal no.545/08. These Appeals though are filed in 2008, they relate to an occurrence of 1999 and originally they were convicted in 2001 against which they had filed an Appeal in 2001 in which they succeeded. Accused no. 1 to 6 in Application No.628/08 in Cri.Appeal No.544/08 were never on bail. According to the learned senior counsel, either during the trial or during the Appeal, the accused in Application No.628/08 in Cri.Appeal No.544/08 have been behind the bars for almost 10 years. These accused have been sentenced to life and they have already served 10 years imprisonment and the Appeals will take further time. 5. Therefore, we direct the Registry to treat these Appeals as Appeals to have been filed in 2001, when the original Appeals were filed and after preparing the paperbooks, post the Appeals for final hearing as soon as possible. 6. Both the bail applications are granted. Accused nos. 1 to 6 in Application No.628/2008 in Cri.Appeal No.544/2008 and Accused nos. 7 to 14 in Application ( 4 ) No.630/2008 in Cri.Appeal no.545/2008 be released on bail, on each of them furnishing personal bonds in the amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of equal amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge. A further condition shall be imposed on the Applicants/accused in both the Applications that they shall remain present in this Court whenever both the aforesaid Appeals are listed for hearing. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (BILAL (BILAL (BILAL NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.)