1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2476 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.242 OF 2010 Shriram Parasram Puyed and others ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the applicants Mr. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for original complainant. ........ WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2658 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.259 OF 2010 Bhanudas Motiram Puyad and others ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicants Mr. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for original complainant. ........ WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3206 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.242 OF 2010 Sitaram Abaji Puyed and another ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- 2 Shriram Parasram Puyed and others ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. R.N. Dhorde holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, advocate for the applicant Mr. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.24 ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 3rd September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. These are the applications for bail in respective appeals preferred by the applicants against the judgment of conviction and sentence, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.44/2007. The applicants are convicted for the offence under Sections 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The applicants challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence on various grounds, chiefly on account of improper appreciation of the evidence without considering inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses to the incident. 3. It appears that P.W.-Maruti, P.W.-Datta and P.W.-Arjun were cited as witnesses in another Sessions Case No.123/2006, 3 which is pending against the victim and his party members. The learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. make a statement that the said Sessions Case No.123/2006 is at the fag end of the trial. It appears that during the pendency of that Sessions Case which is instituted on report filed by one of the accused, the above named three persons came to be eliminated. 4. The learned A.P.P. submits that the village is vertically divided in two fractions and there is bitterness amongst the two groups for various reasons including the political reason and old enmity. Therefore, there is bad blood between them. The learned A.P.P. points out that the victim and witnesses were given Police protection. 5. The Counsel for the applicants, however, submits that the appeals are likely to be heard after considerable delay, having regard to the bulk of evidence recorded in the matter and time that may be consumed in preparing of the paper book etc. My attention is invited to the observations in "Kiran Kumar V/s State of M.P." {2001 AIR SCW 5130} and "Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others V/s State of Gujarat" { AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1859}. The Apex Court held in Kiran Kumar (Supra) that every endeavour should be made to have the appeal posted for early 4 hearing and disposal. It is observed that, if the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal the appeal itself will become, for all practical purposes, infrutuous so far as the appellant is concerned. At the same time the Apex Court observed that it does not mean that the appellate Court should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be danger to the society or any other similar difficulties. It is thus explicit that ordinarily, the Court will make serious attempt to ensure that expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in order to dispel the apprehension that the appeal itself is become infructuous due to running of the sentence. However, at the same time, the Court is required to decline grant of relief, in respect of suspension of substantive sentence, as and when it is found that the consequences would be dangerous to the society or if there are any other similar defects noticed. It, prima facie, appears that the bitter animosity between two groups in the village is such that members of one group, if freed are likely to go behind the members of other group to snatch life of the members belonging to opposite group. It is stated by the learned A.P.P. that the Police force is deployed in the village and atmosphere is sensitive. Already three of the accused involved in the present Sessions case, in which the sentence has been awarded, have been done away with and the atmosphere in the village is volatile. Obviously, it is apparent that if the applicants are released on bail, 5 some of them may be exposed to danger of being caught and eliminated by the members of opposite members. It is for safety of the applicants also that for the present they should not be granted freedom. Not only merely on basis of nature of conviction but having regard to the eminent danger to the lives of the persons who are enshrined in the opposite crime, the bail may not be granted to the applicants. Instead, I feel it proper to award the final out come of the Sessions Case No.123/2006 and thereafter to consider the bail applications afresh on merits. It may be made clear that I have not considered the merits of the case for the present and the evidence against the applicants or their involvement in the commission of alleged offence. 6. Under the circumstances, the bail applications are disposed of and the liberty is granted to apply after a period of three months and in the mean while, the office is directed to prepare paper books so as to ensure speedy disposal of the appeals. Appeals are tentatively scheduled for final hearing on 30th December, 2010 and in the meanwhile, the paper books shall be prepared. The criminal applications are disposed of accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri2476.10