1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2468 OF 2009 1.Sanjay Haribhau Patil .. 2.Bhairavnath Bhau Patil .. 3.Shrikant Haribhau Patil .. 4.Pandurang Bhau Patil .. 5.Vinayak Satappa Gaikwad .. 6.Digambar Bhairavnath Patil .. Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.S.A.Ingawale for the applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. Mr.Shrikant H.Yadav for the original complainant. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 9TH JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the original complainant learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.4 of 2009 of Murgud police station, District Kolhapur. The crime has been registered against the applicants and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 141, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, 507, 120(B) and 149 of IPC and under section 135 of Bombay Police Act. 2 3. Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicants, at the outset, on instructions, does not press this application on behalf of applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 and seeks liberty to these applicants to file fresh application for bail if the trial does not commence within four months from today. Ms.Shinde, learned A.P.P. has no objection for granting such liberty. The application filed by applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. It is made clear that I have not considered the case of applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 on merits. 4. I have perused the statement of the complainant and the other eye witnesses so also the post mortem notes and injury certificates of all the injured witnesses. The injury certificates show that all the injuries sustained by the witnesses are simple in nature. Insofar as the post mortem notes are concerned, it appears that an injury on head ultimately caused death. Though it is not clear as to who gave fatal blow to the deceased, the complainant has stated that applicant nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased. The deceased sustained only one injury on the head. Insofar as applicant no.2 – Bhairavnath Bhau Patil is concerned, he also sustained serious injury and, therefore, applicant no.3 - Shrikant Haribhau Patil also filed cross complaint against the complainant and his group. Perusal of the FIR’s lodged by both the sides show that there was fight between the two groups in which applicant no.2 – Bhairavnath 3 Bhau Patil sustained fracture. Insofar as applicant nos.5 and 6 are concerned, they are young boys of 19 and 20 years and they, according to the statements of the eye witnesses, assaulted the injured witnesses, who sustained only simple injuries. In view thereof I am inclined to enlarge applicant nos. 2, 5 and 6 on bail. Hence the following order: Applicant no.2 – Bhairavnath Bhau Patil, applicant no.5 – Vinayak Satappa Gaikwad and applicant no.6 – Digambar Bhairavnath Patil, to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the condition that applicant nos.2, 5 and 6 shall report to the concerned police station on every Wednesday and Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm for a period of four months and thereafter on every Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm till conclusion of the trial. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)