1 appa738.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.738 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.186 OF 2009 AND 245 OF 2009 Suraj Puran Bahadur & Anr. .. Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Jagdish Shetty for the applicants. Mr.D.P.Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR, JJ DATED : 30TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The applicants were convicted and sentenced to suffer ten years imprisonment by the trial Court. The applicants have prayed for grant of bail pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Learned counsel for the applicants during the course of argument submitted that applicant no.2 – Ranjan Mohandas Kadri had filed second bail application bearing No.1130 of 2010 which was rejected by an order dated 7.12.2010. It was submitted that the first bail application filed by the same accused was also rejected by this court on 29.9.2009. This would be third bail application filed by the accused – Ranjan Mohandas Kadri. 3. There are serious allegations made against applicant no.1 – Suraj Puran Bahadur, who fired bullet from his revolver on P.W.2 – Ashok Manek. The bullet struck in the middle left side of rib of Ashok Manek. Sh 2 appa738.11 The evidence of P.W.2, the injured, was perused by us. He has identified the applicants as assailants. We have even perused the medical evidence of P.W.14 – Dr.P.S.Shastri. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of original accused nos.2 and 3 was already admitted. The appeal filed by the accused against the order of conviction and sentence would take considerable long time according to the counsel. 4. Learned APP submits that there is strong prima facie case against the applicants and that the prosecution has led evidence against involvement of the applicants. The role attributed to applicant no.1 is very serious in nature. The application of applicant no.2 was already rejected twice by this court. The appeal filed by the State against other accused has been admitted. Considering the prima facie case against the applicants the learned APP prayed for rejection of the bail application. 5. We have perused relevant depositions and considering the nature of accusations and evidence of the injured, manner of assault, we are not inclined to release the applicants on bail though we are aware that the applicants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a maximum period of ten years for an offence punishable under section 326 of IPC alongwith other offences. The application is rejected, however, the applicants are at liberty to move the appeals for early hearing at an appropriate stage. (MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR,J.) (NARESH H PATIL,J.)