:1: appa.671.11 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.671 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.486 OF 2010 Ajay Suryakant Malge ..Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ____________________ Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/b. P.G.Sarda for Appellant. Mr. D. P. Adsule, APP for State. CORAM :- NARESH. H. PATIL, & K. U. CHANDIWAL, J J. DATE :- JULY 8, 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: K .U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) The original accused No.6 seeks release on bail in Criminal Appeal No.486 of 2010 challenging the findings recorded by the Learned Judge vide order dated 04.06.2010. The Accused-Applicant is in custody from 05.05.2007. 2 The Learned Senior Counsel, exhaustively took us to the evidence, to attribute (a) Whether Accused No.6 carried same intention as was carried out by Accused Nos.4 and 5. (b) Whether the accused could be roped in by aid of Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. :2: appa.671.11 3 The Learned Counsel placed reliance to the order of releasing Accused Nos.4 and 5 vide Application No.396 of 2011, to inform whether there could be a distinction between those two accused and Accused Nos.6 and whether the bail granted to other two accused could also be showered to the present Accused-Applicant. 4 We have perused the evidence of PW-3 Sunil Gaikwad PW-4 Somnath Sonvane, the another cart holder whose iron stool was lifted by the Accused-Applicant. 5 Even if PW-6 has turned hostile , however, at this stage we should not comment on worth of eye witnesses PW-2 or PW-4. There cannot be roving reassessment to the evidence of these eye witnesses. They have specifically pointed role of the Accused-Applicant having lifted iron stool and hit the same to the deceased at the shop/ cart. The Accused- Applicant was a member of unlawful assembly, who shared an intention to carry illegal activities. They had barged in prosecution of common object. Consequently the same intention as was harboured by Accused Nos.1 and 2 would be applicable. 6 At this stage, reasonable inference or role of Accused -Applicant could be drawn as the medical evidence shows that there was a skull/ scalp injury which is indicative to be fetal and was authored by the Accused -Applicant No.6. In the result, the bail application lacks merit. Dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.)