MP 1 APEAL1259_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1259 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1264 OF 2011 Vikram Vinay Bhave ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1260 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1265 OF 2011 Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Sanjiv Punalkar, Advocate for Appellants. Smt. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 11TH OCTOBER 2011 P. C. : Heard. Both the appeals admitted. 2. The appellants, who are original accused Nos. 1 and 3, seek to be released on bail pending their appeals against the order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 324, 427 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Sections 3(a) r/w. S.4(b)(i), 5(a) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1884 and Section 9(b) of Explosives Act, 1984. Different sentences were awarded for different offences. However, maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for MP 2 APEAL1259_11 ten years with fine has been awarded for the offence under Section 3(a) r/w. Sections 4(b)(i), 5(a) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. In all, six accused persons were put to trial. Out of six accused persons, four persons were acquitted and accused Nos. 1 and 3 were convicted for the above-referred charges. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that to protest screening of film Jodha Akbar and two other Dramas in Marathi, explosions were carried out at different places. As a result of which, some property was damaged and many people were injured. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the whole case is based on the circumstantial evidence, and even, some of the circumstances have not been accepted to be true by the trial Court. He also tried to contend that the investigation was not fair. These circumstances can be looked into at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Learned APP makes a statement that the prosecution is also going to file an appeal against acquittal of the remaining accused persons and for enhancement of sentence. 4. Taking into consideration the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. Therefore, the application for bail stands rejected. 5. However, as the accused persons are in jail since June 2008, the paper- book be prepared as early as possible and in any case within six months and the appeals be listed for Final Hearing. Liberty is granted to the applicants to file private paper-books if they so desire. In case the appeals are not disposed of within one and a half year, applicants shall have liberty to move fresh application for bail. (J. H. BHATIA, J)