IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1216 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1150 OF 2007 Shri.Ganesh Popat More ...Applicant (Ori.Accd.No.4) Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1217 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2007 Bhausaheb Bhimrao Karche ...Applicant (Ori.Accd.No.3) Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mr.S.P.Kadam for Applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. APRIL 11, 2008. APRIL 11, 2008. APRIL 11, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. : 2 : 2. After going through the relevant materials on record, particularly evidence of PW 4, PW5 and PW 8, I find substance in the view taken by the Trial Court about the complicity of the Applicants in the commission of the offence. The presence of the Applicants at the scene of offence has been spoken about by each of these witnesses. The fact that PW 1 who is an independent witness has not specifically named the Applicants/accused Nos.3 and 4, does not mean that the consistent evidence of PW 4, PW 5 and PW 8 which has been found to be trustworthy by the Trial Court can be discarded at this stage. 3. Suffice it to observe that there is sufficient material to indicate the complicity of the Applicants, for which reason, the prayer for bail will have to be rejected. 4. I am informed that the accused No.1 has already been released on bail, however, the consideration for releasing accused No.1 on bail was principally that he has already undergone more : 3 : than half of the sentence period. In the circumstances, that cannot be extended to the Applicants/accused Nos.3 and 4 herein, who have suffered sentence of only around six months as of now. 5. The argument of the Applicants that the accused Nos.3 and 4 have no concern in the quarrel which ensued between the accused No.1 and the Complainant party on the previous day, does not take the matter any further. What is relevant to be noticed is that the Applicants were found on the scene of offence at wee hours along with accused No.4. The charge against the Applicants is one of offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus understood, this argument does not take the matter any further. 6. Accordingly, the Applications are dismissed. At the same time, accused are granted liberty to apply afresh for bail after one year. That liberty can be availed only if the Applicants were to file printed paper-book in this Court within four weeks from today, so that, the Appeals : 4 : can be set down for final hearing in the week commencing from 16th June 2008 to be taken as per its turn. 7. As R & P is already available, the Applicants will have to avail of this liberty, in the event they are interested in early disposal of the Appeals, as the sentence imposed is a short sentence. It is only if the Appeals are included in the final hearing list in terms of this direction and cannot be disposed of within one year, the Applicants can be permitted to apply for 8. Applications disposed of accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.