1 Appln-3353-10-&-Ors..sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3353 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3354 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3684 OF 2010 Subhadra Hanmant Birajdar ... Applicant vs/ State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents CRIMINAL APPLN. NO. 3684 OF 2010 Mahasidha Siddhanna Chaugule Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.P.G.Sarda,Advocate, for the applicant (in Appln.No.3353/10 & 3354/10) Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa,APP for the respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Jaydeep D.Mane, Advocate or respondent Nos. 2,3 & 5 (in Appln.No. 3353/10) and for respondent Nos. 2,3, & 5 t 9 (in Appln.No.3354/10). Appln. No. 3684/2010 Shri Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the respondent NO.1. Shri P.G.Sarda, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 9th November, 2011. P.C. 1. First two applications are filed by the applicant, who is mother of the original first informant and injured Rajkumar, for cancellation of bail granted to 2 Appln-3353-10-&-Ors..sxw the accused persons in Crime No.68/2010 registered under Sections 395, 397,398, 307, 147,148 read with Sections 34 and 149 of IPC. The 3rd application i.e. Criminal Application NO.3684/1020 is also filed for cancellation of bail in the counter case, being Crime No.69/2010 registered under Sections 302, 323,504, 147,148 an 149 of IPC by the applicant, who is father of the deceased in the case. The incident in both the cases appears to have taken place on 26.3.2011 from 10.30 to 11.30 a.m. in front of Maruti temple at Village Jangalgi where both the parties reside. In Criminal Case No.68/2010, one Somling son of the applicant suffered number of injuries, including amputation of both the arms. Her another son Rajkumar also suffered several injuries, including multiple compound fractures. In the counter-case, one person was killed. In both the cases, bail was granted by the Sessions Court by passing separate orders and thus the accused persons in both the matters are on bail since July, 2010. 2. After some discussion at the Bar, the learned Counsel for both parties informed that after grant of bail in Crime No.68/2010, the concerned accused persons are residing at Village Mangalwedha and go to village Jangalgi only when it is is absolutely necessary to cultivate the land. In the counter-case i.e. Crime No.69/2010, the accused persons are residing at Jangalji. According to the learned Counsel, the distance between Jangalgi and Malgalwedha is about 10 to 3 Appln-3353-10-&-Ors..sxw 15 kms. and also they admitted that after grant of bail no incident has occurred between the parties. In such circumstances, it will not be in the interest of justice to cancel the bail granted to the accused persons in both the cases. The learned Counsel for rival parties conceded that purpose may be served if condition of attendance at the Police Station and maintainance of peace is imposed on both the sides. The learned APP also conceded that this may better serve the purpose. 3. In view of the above, the accused/respondents in Application Nos. 3353/2010 and 3354/2010 (Crime No.68/2010) are hereby directed to maintain peace and to attend the Mangalwedha Police Station on every Monday between 6 to 8 p.m. trill end of trial. 4. The accused/respondents in Application No.3684/2010 (Crime No. 69/2010) shall maintain peace and shall attend the Mangalwedha Police Station on every Thursday between 1 to 3 p.m. till end of the trial of the case. These applications stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)