1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4096 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..... Applicant. V/s Shri Rohidas Sakharam Divekar and Ors. ...... Respondents. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13th March, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is an application for cancellation of bail. Respondents were arrested for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Prosecution case is that the respondents along with the main accused Chandrakant Patil assaulted Umesh Patil and the eye witnesses have stated that the respondents herein assaulted the victim with fist blows and kick blows whereas the main accused took out a dragger/knife and stabbed the victim Umesh Patil, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries and died. The medical certificate indicates that the cause of death was due to blow given by the dragger. 2 4. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. The learned Judge has observed that since the respondents herein had assaulted the deceased with fist blows and kick blows, there was no possibility of conviction of the respondents under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code since the only role attributed to them was of assault by kick and fist blows. Bail has not been granted to the main accused Chandrakant Patil. In this view of the matter, submissions made by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State cannot be accepted. No allegation has been made by the State that after the bail was granted, the respondents have misused the liberty which was given to them or they have threatened the prosecution witnesses. 5. The learned APP has also pointed out that number of cases have been pending against the respondents herein and, therefore, bail ought not to have been granted by the Sessions Court. 6. The Sessions Court has observed that the offence committed by the respondents would not fall under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but would fall under section 326 and since the said offence not being punishable with death or imprisonment for life, merely because some cases are pending against the respondents that by itself would not be a ground for denying bail to these respondents. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Anil alias 3 Bapu Balasaheb Marne Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in B.Cr.C. 144 has observed that when the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and investigation is completed and charge- sheet is filed, pendency of criminal cases against the accused is not the ground for rejecting the bail application. The said observation would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. No case is, therefore, made out for cancellation of bail. 7. Application for cancellation of bail is therefore rejected. Liberty is granted to the State to apply for cancellation of bail if any complaint is received against the respondents of threatening the prosecution witnesses. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)