((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.131 OF 2009 Ankush Sopan Burange & anr. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Jaydeep D. Mane for applicant. J.P.Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th March 2009 PC : 1. The applicants-accused have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 394 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as section 397 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicants were on bail during pendency of the trial. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine the independent witnesses who were present at the spot. He submitted that only interested witnesses have been examined. Inviting my attention to the deposition of injured witness Renu as well as the medical officer he submitted that the entire issue has been magnified by the prosecution. He ((-2-)) submitted that the seizure panchanama of the bag allegedly snatched by the applicants has not been made. He submitted that there are infirmities in the prosecution case. His submission is that by no stretch of imagination the offence for which the applicants have been convicted has been established. 3. I have perused the notes of evidence and the impugned judgement. There is evidence of the injuries sustained by the witnesses by use of sword. Moreover, the evidence on record shows that the accused were caught on the spot. Considering the nature of evidence this is not a case where the applicants can be enlarged on bail. 4. Prayer for bail is rejected. 5. The hearing of the appeal is expedited. Liberty to file private paper book. If the appeal is not heard within a reasonable time, the applicants will be at liberty to file a fresh bail application, which will be decided on its own merits. (A.S.OKA, J.)