cr appa 582­10.doc rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 582 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2005 Tejappa Shivappa Basargi .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Amit Sale for the Applicants Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 13.08.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 02nd September, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant along with 24 other accused came to be convicted by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge at Sangli in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2004 for the offence under 1 cr appa 582­10.doc Sections 143, 147, 506 r/w 149, 342 r/w 149, 436 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149, 427 r/w 149, 120B, 504 r/w 149 of IPC. Through this application, the applicant is seeking bail. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that a mob of about 45 members of two families i.e Birazdar and Basargi of village Asangi-Turk assembled near the house of Mahadev Chavan on 21.03.2004 at about 4.00 p.m. These persons locked the house and set it on fire which resulted in death of Mahadev Chavan and his family. Forty persons faced the trial, out of it, 25 persons came to be convicted. The present applicant is out of the 25 persons who came to be convicted. The appeal preferred by the applicant has been admitted and is pending for hearing before the court. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of three eye witnesses namely PW3 Irrappa Kamble, PW 4 Manohar Hake and PW 17 Jagannath Chavan. PW 3 Irrappa who is an eye witness has not mentioned the name of this applicant. So also PW4 Manohar who is an eye witness has not mentioned the name of the present applicant. However, learned APP has pointed out that PW 17 Jagannath has mentioned the name of the present applicant. As far as this aspect is concerned, we have noticed that PW 3 Irrappa is not only an eye witness but he is also the first informant in the present 2 cr appa 582­10.doc case. Though, he is an eye witness and he is also a resident of village Asangi-Turk. He has not mentioned the name of present applicant in the FIR or in his evidence before the court. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that village Asangi-Turk is a small village, hence the persons residing in the village would know each other. Admittedly, the applicant and eye witnesses are the residents of village Asangi-Turk, in such case, prima facie we find much merit in this submission that if at all the applicant was really present and he participated in the incident, the first informant would have mentioned his name in the FIR. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to grant the bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order: O R D E R 1. The Applicant - Tejappa Shivappa Basargi be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- [Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only] with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The Applicant shall report to Umdi Police Station, Tal. Jath, Dist. Sangli once in a month till disposal of the appeal. During pendency of this appeal, the applicant shall not enter within the limits of village Asangi-Turk. 2. Application is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] 3 cr appa 582­10.doc 4