jpc ba770-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 770 OF 2011 1. Pratik Devidas Dolas 2. Mithilesh Sanjay Kamble ... Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Anjali Patil, for the applicants Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 19th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Ms. Patil, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Newton, the learned APP for the State. 2. I have gone through the first information report and the copies of the statements recorded during the investigation, that are annexed to bail application. 3. The applicants and six others are alleged to have assaulted one Harshal Tikhe by stumps, gupti and stone, causing his death by such assault. Five accused in this case have already been released on bail. 4. As regards the applicant No.1-Pratik, the first information report mentions that he assaulted the deceased by a gupti. Notes of postmortem examination indicate that it is the injury caused by gupti jpc ba770-11.sxw 2 that proved fatal. However, the first informant himself, in his supplementary statement, recorded two days after lodging of the F.I.R., mentions that the assault by gupti was not by the applicant No.1- Pratik but by some other accused i.e. Mayur Malusare. The other witnesses who also initially attributed the role of assault by gupti, to the applicant no.1- Pratik- later on changed their versions and said that the assault by gupti was by some other accused. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that as per the case of the investigating agency, the person assaulting by gupti, is the accused Mayur Malusare, who has been released on bail by the Court of Sessions. Thus, so far as the applicant no.1-Pratik is concerned, the least, that can be said is that there exists a doubt about the precise role performed by him in the incident. 6. As regards applicant No.2- Mithilesh, he is alleged to have assaulted the deceased on his head by a stone. There is substance in the contention advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant that the head injury has been opined to be having caused simple hurt and that apparently, that has not caused death. 7. Undoubtedly, the applicants and other accused appear to have came to the secene of offence with weapons and assaulted the deceased. It, therefore, cannot be said that their exists no prima facie jpc ba770-11.sxw 3 case against them. However, it is submitted that they are in custody since April, 2010. Both the applicants are said to be students. There are no antecedents. Some of the co-accused including the one who allegedly gave a blow on the chest of the deceased with a gupti, has been released on bail. 8. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the applicants of availing of liberty. It would be proper, in the circumstances to expedite the trial. 9. The application is allowed. 10. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only ) each, with one surety in like amount, on the condition that the applicants shall report to the Bhosari Police Station, Pune, every Sunday between 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. till the disposal of the case against them. 11. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and endeavour to complete it within a period of nine months from today. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)