-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.1348 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2006 Ranglal Gangadhar Gupta ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr.V.C.Desai Advocate for Applicant Ms.A.A.Mane, APP for Respondent .... CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : JANUARY 31, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 31, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 31, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in Sessions Case No.278 of 2001 by judgment and order dated 23.3.2006 by the learned Principal Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. The applicant is now seeking bail. -2- 3. There are four eye witnesses in the present case i.e. P.W.2 Suresh Yadav, P.W.3 Laltaprasad Yadav, P.W.4 Changez Multani and P.W.17 Sahebraj Yadav. All these eye witnesses implicate the present applicant. In his evidence, P.W.3 Laltaprasad Yadav has stated that the present applicant and his two brothers surrounded the deceased Fausdar Yadav. The present applicant caught hold of the deceased from the backside and two brothers of the present applicant i.e. Shankarlal and Nankuram assaulted the deceased with knife. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the present applicant has not inflicted any blows and hence, it cannot be said that the present applicant is liable under Section 302 of IPC. However, in the present case, the medical evidence shows that there were 22 incised wounds on the body of the deceased. The role assigned to the present applicant by eye witnesses is that he held the deceased while two brothers of the present applicant inflicted blows with knife. The present applicant held the deceased till 22 blows were inflicted on -3- the body of the deceased. This clearly shows that the applicant shared the common intention of the other two accused persons. We find that there is sufficient evidence which implicates the present applicant. Hence, we do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. 5. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.]