1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Criminal Application No.484 of 2009 In Criminal Appeal No.1241 of 2008 1. Asif Mansoorali Anasari 2. Mohd. Sharif @ Badshaha Shamin Khan 3. Parvez Ahmed @ Guddu @ Vastav Shamin Khan Applicants (Org. Accused Nos.2,3,4) Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Ganesh Gole for applicants. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI,JJ. August 14, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Gole, the learned counsel for the applicants – accused nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, the learned APP. This is an application for bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.1241 of 2008 filed by these three 2 accused. 2. All the applicants along with accused no.1 were put on trial in Sessions Case No.680 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 354, 376, 377, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution examined in all 23 witnesses and the Sessions Court held in its judgment and order dated 24/10/2008 that except offence under Section 376 of IPC, all other charges were proved. It noted that the deceased Minakshi, who was 3 and ½ years of age and the daughter of complainant – PW 5, was subjected to annal sex and killed by strangulation. The Sessions Court noted the murder as heinous and brutal but did not record it as the the rarest of rare and, therefore, awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. 3. With the help of Mr.Gole, we have gone through the depositions of PW 4, Shri Sayyad Rehmatali Sayyad Insafali, PW 5 Raju Mahadev Shikare, PW 7 Armogam Pandurang Kondram and PW 20 Dr. Sunil Jawale, Medical Officer, Rajawadi Post Mortem at the relevant time. The Medical Officer noted that the victim died a homicidal death and she was subjected to 3 annal sex and in that process at least two of the accused had sustained injuries i.e. accused nos.1 and 2. Mr.Konde- Deshmukh, the learned APP also pointed out the antecedents of the applicants and as deposed by the witnesses, he pointed out that they had known criminal background and, therefore, they are known in the area for spreading terror. 4. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that there is no case made out to suspend the order of sentence and release any of the applicants on bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. Hence the application is rejected. (SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)