- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1198 OF 2009 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1004 OF 2009 in SESSIONS CASE NO.1 OF 2006 1. Nagesh Gulabrao Sonavale ... Applicants 2. Pravin Uttam Sonavale Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent D.S.Manerkar for Applicants Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATED: January 27, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicants/Original accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively were tried by the Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.1 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal code. The applicants have been convicted by learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life. Appeal preferred by the applicants has been admitted. This is their application for bail. - 2 - 2. In short, case of the prosecution appears to be that the deceased had a love affair with the sister of accused no.2. Accused no.1 is a friend of accused no.2. The said love affair was not liked by the accused and therefore,according to the prosecution, both the accused killed the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27th September, 2005 at about 7 p.m accused no.1 came to the house of the deceased and called him to accompany him on some pretext. They went together on the motorcycle of accused no.1. The case of the prosecution further is that they were last seen together by PW 2 mother of the deceased. At about 11.45 p.m. father of accused no.1 came to the house of PW 2 and informed her that her son i.e. the deceased was found lying near Panand. The dead body of the deceased was indeed found at Panand. F.I.R. came to be lodged by PW 2. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants at some length. He submitted that there is no direct evidence against the accused. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW 2 who claims to have last seen the deceased in the company of the first accused. The prosecution has also alleged love affair between the sister of the deceased and accused no.2 which is stated to be the motive. There is recovery of sticks at the instance of accused no.2. Learned counsel submitted that the circumstances do not point unerringly to the guilt of - 3 - the accused and hence, the accused may be released on bail. He further stated that the accused were on bail during trial. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the grant of bail. 5. So far as accused no.2 is concerned, the evidence against him is of recovery of sticks at his instance. Undoubtedly, PW 1 Dr.Pawar has stated that injuries like fracture of fibia, contusions and bruises suffered by the deceased are possible by a stick. However, prima facie in the absence of any other clinching evidence on record to connect accused no.2 with the crime in question it is difficult to hold that he is responsible for murder. In our prima facie opinion, therefore accused no.2 should be released on bail. So far as accused no.1 is concerned, PW 2 has deposed that accused no.1 had come on his motorcycle to their house at 7.30 p.m. and taken the deceased with him. The dead body of the deceased was found soon thereafter i.e. at about 11.30 p.m. This in our prima facie opinion is a clinching circumstance which cannot be ignored. It is therefore, not possible for us to release accused no.1 on bail. Hence, the following order : - 4 - ORDER Accused No.2 Pravin Uttam Sonavale is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the amount. While on bail, he shall attend Rahitmatpur police station, Satara once in a month. Criminal Application is disposed of. Smt. Ranjana Desai, J Smt Mridula Bhatkar, J - 5 -