Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1024 of 2008 Shri Bhiva Mahadev Shinde & anr. ...Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Kuldeep S.Patil for the Applicants Mr.S.S.Pednekar -APP for the State CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J : V.C.DAGA, J : V.C.DAGA, J 11th 11th 11th June, 2008 June, 2008 June, 2008 P.C. . Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. Perused the application and material available on record. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are accused nos. 2 and 5 respectively. 2. It appears from the record that this is an application for grant of regular bail in C.R.No. 197/07 registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, Sangli for the offence punishable under Section 304,147,148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. 3. This application was moved after having suffered adverse reasoned order dated 4-3-2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in M.A. No. 118/2008 where under, the application for bail moved by the present applicant came to be rejected with the following 2 observations. "From perusal of zerox set of charge sheet filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Sangli, arising out of CR No. 97/2007, registered by Vishrambag Police Station. For the offence punishable under Sections 147,148, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, it is evident that the prosecution case is based on occular evidence of as many as 12 witnesses viz. Sunil Pralhad Shinde, (informant/complainant) Madhukar Dadasaheb Waghmode, Yuvraj Gorakh Bajbale, Arjun Mahadeo SAngunkar, Ganesh Govind Choughule, Smt. Mangal Bhagwan Adsule, Smt. Kasabai Rama Padalkar, Sou. Vaishali Tukaram Shejal, Maruti Dhondiba Bandgar, Surekha Mahado Mane, Pradip Bhindudas Durate and Laxmi Kondabai Prakash Gauganmale. Thus there is a considerable merit in the submission of the prosecution that a prima-facie triable case for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. is made out against the accused Nos. 2 and 5. It is significant to note that considering the nature of the prosecution case, it is not just possible to segregate or consider the role of the accused nos. 2 and 5, independently for holding that they have committed an offence of simply hurt only." 4. The witnesses are from the same locality in which applicant stays. The injuries suffered by the victim speak for itself which are described while rejecting regular bail. After having gone through the papers and the material available on record, no case is made out to take view other than the view taken by the Learned Sessions Judge. 5. Thus, for the reasons given by the Learned Sessions 3 Judge and the reasons recorded herein, application for bail is rejected. 6. Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)