IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 205 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2008. Ramesh Anjayya Pare & Anr. ...... ......Applicants. V/s State of Maharashtra... ...... .....Respondent. Mr.S.C.Kanojia, Adv. For the applicants. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP For the respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 24/3/08 PC: Appeal admitted. R & P be called for. This bail application is moved by original accused Nos.1 and 2. The applicants are convicted for the offence punishable under section 387 of IPC read with section 120B and section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.7000/- each, in default to further undergo RI for a period of seven months. The applicants are also convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 120B and section 34 of IPC to suffer RI for period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10000/- each, in default to further undergo RI for a period of 10 months. Applicant No.2 is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3 read with section 25 of the Arms act and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo further RI for a 1 period of three months. 2. According to the prosecution the applicants had approached the complainant on his business site on 10.9.98 and handed over a chit and by pointing out revolver at him told the complainant to dial a number and asked the complainant to talk to “Bhai”. One of the telephone number provided by the applicants to the complainant is from Kuwait. The person referred to in the chit as “bhai” is Abu Salem. After 2/3 days there was a demand of Rs.10 lacs by a person named Shaffi. But out of fear the complainant did not inform the said fact to the police. On 9.10.98 when the complainant was parking his car the present applicant Nos.1 and 2 approached the car. Applicant No.2 was holding the revolver and fired two shots from revolver. The complainant ran away from the spot and lodged complaint to the police. The present applicants are identified by the complainant, his partner so also an independent witness. Perused the judgment. Prima facie enough material is available against the present applicants to reach a finding of conviction. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were released on bail during the trial and hence submits that they be so released on bail pending decision of the appeal. Per contra learned APP submits that the offence involved being of a serious nature and as the applicants have been convicted and sentenced to maximum period of 10 years no case for grant of bail is made out. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence I do not find this to be a fit case for release of applicants on bail. Hence bail application stands rejected. 2