1 cri.appln-47-11 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.47 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.33 OF 2010 Shri Shivaji Balwant Khude ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. S.P. Kadam, for the applicant. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 25th January, 2011 P.C. We have heard Mr.Kadam, the learned Counsel for the applicant- accused No.2. This is an application for bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2010. Criminal Application No.58 of 2010 was also filed and was not pressed for accused No.2. Accused No.1 has been released on bail as per the order dated 8th July, 2010 while allowing Criminal Application No.845 of 2010. In the said order this Court distinguished the role assigned to accused Nos.1 and accused No.2, while assaulting the deceased with empty milk can on his head and released 2 cri.appln-47-11 accused No.1 on bail by observing that his case stood on different footing from that of accused No.2. 2. Even otherwise we have perused the oral depositions of P.W.1- Somnath, P.W.4-Dr.Madhukar Pandurang Late, P.W.5 Vijay Pol and P.W.6- Sudhir Pol. As per the prosecution P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W. 6 were eye witnesses to the incident in which Shantaram Ozhardekar, the father of P.W.1 died a homicidal death. 3. Having regard to the specific role assigned to the accused No.2 by these three eye witnesses, in our prima facie considerations, we are satisfied that there is no case made out to suspend the order of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., and release the applicant-accused No.2 on bail during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal. 4. Hence the application is rejected. 5. Paper book expedited. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)