1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.577 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.450 OF 2009 Prabhakar Shankar Mokal & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Smt.D.S.Punde for the Applicant Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : JUNE 16TH,2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for bail filed by the accused original accused No.1 to 3. Said applicant was convicted on 8th May, 2009 by the Adhoc District Judge I and Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Each applicant was sentenced to suffer R/I.for 5 years 2 and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default further R/I. for 15 days. Appeal is already admitted and bail application is taken today. 2. During the arguments, learned counsel Shri.Mundargi for the applicant submitted that the injuries sustained by complainant and his brother are not of such a nature so as to endanger the life and on that count substantive evidence of Doctor is brought to the notice of the Court. It appears that the injured persons had incised wounds on their faces and near the ribs. There are two injured eye witnesses and also four other eye witnesses examined in the matter. Totally there were eight accused persons and out of them accused Nos. 4,6 and 7 were acquitted and accused No.8 died. 3. The role attributed to accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that of use of sword for inflicting injuries on the complainant and his brother. There was intervention when complainant was being assaulted on bright day light at about 3.30 p.m. on the day of the incident when it was the occasion of local festival of Gavdevi in the village. Reportedly, other co-accused instigated the main accused person for doing away with the injured person by taking their names. Apparently, said incident of assault 3 occurred due to some alleged political rivalry between the two groups operating in the village and reportedly prior to this incident there was similar such commotion during earlier Zilla Parishad Elections. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that during the trial applicants were on bail and as such considering the alleged political rivalry possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Counter to the above arguments, it is submitted by learned A.P.P.for the state that the substantive evidence of both the injured eye witnesses, corroborated by other four witnesses, the role of convicted accused, moreover, the role attributed to accused Nos. 3 to 5 as to holding the injured persons while they were assaulted by accused Nos. 1 and 2, brings them under the purview of section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is further argued that in order to see that there should not be any disturbance of law and order situation in the village where both the rival groups reside, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release the applicant on bail. 4. Considering the material as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also against accused Nos. 3 and 5 and considering their respective roles and considering the substantive evidence of two injured 4 wintesses and four other eye witnesses, in the opinion of this Court, here it is not a case in which applicants can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal. Hence, present application for bail is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)