1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No. 174 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 2010 Vinod @ Bablu Baburam Yadao and another ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.M.Jaltare, Advocate for the applicants/appellants Mrs. S.S.Wandile, A.P.P. for the respondent/State CORAM : Mrs.V.K.Tahilramani and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. DATED : 18 th March , 2011 . 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants/original accused nos.3 and 4 and learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State. 2. The applicants along with 2 other accused, have been mainly convicted under Section 302 of Indian penal Code. The applicants are now seeking bail. 3. It is a case of double murder. The prosecution case is that the accused along with two others, assaulted Binu Sharma and Pramod. Due to said assault, Binu and Pramod had expired. There are two eye-witnesses to the incident i.e. P.W.3 Pintu Tiwari and P.W.4 Banti Sharma. P.W.3 Pintu has stated that accused no.4 (applicant no.2) caught hold of Binu from backside and accused nos.1,2 and 3 (applicant no.1) took out iron weapons. When Pramod went to 2 rescue Binu, accused nos.2 and 3 held him. Accused no.1 assaulted Binu by knife and accused nos.2 and 3 started assaulting Pramod with axe and knife. He has stated that accused no.3 was holding an axe at that time. 4. P.W.4 Banti has stated that he saw accused no.3 holding Binu. Accused no.1 assaulted Binu with weapon. He saw accused no. 4 assaulting Pramod with weapon like Gupti. The evidence of these two eye-witnesses shows involvement of both the applicants in the death of Binu and Pramod. Besides the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the prosecution has also placed reliance on the recovery of blood stained clothes and weapons at the instance of of both the applicants. The axe and blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of accused no.3/applicant no.1 and Gupti and blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of accused no.4/applicant no.2. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, we do not find that this is a fit case to grant bail to the applicants. Hence, application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale