1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 419 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2006 SATYAWAN @ SACHIN VISHNU KAMBLE & ORS. .. APPLICANTS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for applicants Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. DATE: 5/8/2008 P.C. . The applicants along with eight others were tried in Sessions Case No. 158 of 2004 in the court of Sessions at Sholapur for offences punishable under Sections 120 read with 302, 364, 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 147, 148, 364, 302, 201 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 25(3) of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with 2 Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The present applicants are original accused 1 to 4 respectively. By order dated 27/3/06 learned Sessions Judge convicted them inter alia under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for life. 3. The instant appeal preferred by them challenging the said judgment and order has been admitted by this court. This application is preferred by them for bail. We are informed that all other accused have been released on bail by this court. 4. We have heard at some length Mr. Sarda, learned advocate appearing for the applicant-accused. He submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the actual incident of stabbing. According to learned advocate the chain of circumstantial evidence does not point directly to the guilt of the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is replete with omissions and contradictions. He submitted that considering the fact that all other accused have been released on bail this court may release the present applicants 3 on bail. 5. Learned APP Mrs. Bhosale on the other hand opposed the grant of bail. She submitted that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the present applicants were carrying deadly weapons. Learned APP urged that there are discoveries at the instance of the accused and in the circumstances, the application for bail may be rejected. 6. Case of the prosecution is that on 17/4/02 murder of Ruturaj ("the deceased" for convenience) took place due to rivalry between two groups near Kalka Vasti at Solapur. The murder was preceded by the attempt of the accused to hunt for the deceased during night between 16/4/2004 and 17/4/2004. A pandal was erected for birth anniversary celebration of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Case of the prosecution is that about 3-30 a.m. on 17/4/04 one autorickshaw came there. Seven persons were sitting in that rickshaw. The applicants i.e. accused 1 to 4 were there amongst others. They were holding swords and knives. They were inquiring about the deceased and his brothers and they declared that they would not wear chappals till they take revenge against them . PW 7 Subhash 4 Pawar was present at the pandal. He has deposed about this incident. According to him accused 1 to 4 had weapons in their hands and they were looking for the deceased or his brothers. 7. The prosecution further alleges that the accused went in an autorickshaw to STD booth at 3-30 p.m. on 17/4/04 and abducted the deceased Ruturaj from the STD booth. PW 4 Sachin Shingade was with the deceased at the STD Booth. He has stated that at about 3-30 p.m. the accused came in a rickshaw to the deceased’s booth and abducted the deceased. According to him accused 1 and 2 got down from the rickshaw and accused 3 was sitting in the rickshaw. Accused 1 and 2 talked to the deceased. They asked him to accompany them for a cup of tea and took him away in the rickshaw. Thus accused 1,2 & 3 are involved in actual abduction of the deceased. 8. PW 5 Yuvraj Bhosale is autorickshaw driver. He claims to know accused 4. PW 8 Sachin Gawade is also autorickshaw driver. According to PW 5 at 6-15 a.m. about seven persons boarded rickshaw of PW 8. They were discussing how they had succeeded in the their mission. They took him and PW 8 5 Sachin Gawade to different places and they got down near Tamalwadi. According to him accused 1 to 4 were amongst those persons. PW 8 Sachin Gawade has given similar evidence. Apart from this evidence there are discoveries of weapons at the instance of the accused. 9. In our opinion, accused 1 to 3 cannot be released on bail. They are concerned with actual abduction of the deceased. All witnessess have identified them. They were seen with weapons. They were seen by two witnessess discussing the success of their mission. Prima facie, therefore, we feel that they were present throughout. There is sufficient prima facie case against them. Their case stands on a different footing from that of the other accused. Hence, we reject their bail application. 10. So far as accused 4 Dipak @ Pintu Chavan is concerned, PW 4 Sachin does not name him as being present at the time of abduction. He is seen at the pandal by PW 7 Subhash Pawar with weapons in his hands prior to the abduction. He is seen after the murder by PW 5 and PW 8. We are informed by Mr. Sarda, learned advocate for the applicants 6 that all the accused except the present applicants, who were seen at the pandal have been released on bail by this court. Hence in our opinion applicant 4 / accused 4 Dipak @ Pintu Chavan should be ordered to be released on bail. Hence the following order: . "Applicant 4 Dipak @ Pintu Vijay Chavan is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. While on bail the applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a month i.e. in the first week of every month till the appeal is disposed of. Criminal Application is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE