[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1426 OF 2008 Sachin @ Pintu Pratp @ Sanjay Patil and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Shirish Gupte senior counsel for Applicants Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 23, 2008 DATE : JULY 23, 2008 DATE : JULY 23, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in CR No.132 of 2007 of Islampur Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that applicants along with other accused are involved in the murder of Mahesh and Umesh who are brothers. The said murders had taken place in broad-day light. 4. Witness Vijay has stated that he heard sound of [-2-] firing. When he went near the shop of the deceased, he saw that co-accused Jaywant, Manik and Ganesh had fire-arms in their hands. when he tried to go near the shop of the deceased person, at that time, applicant no.2 Uday alias Khandya Pawar and one other accused had obstructed him. They raised sticks and threatened him that he should not come ahead otherwise he would also be killed. At that time, Vijay heard shouts of Mahesh. Mahesh was standing near the counter. At that time, Vijay saw applicant no.1 Sachin Patil and applicant No.3 Sunil Dokade were armed with sharp edged weapons like Koyata and axe and other accused persons fired on Mahesh with fire arms. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the incident occurred in the Ironing shop of both the deceased. The panchnama shows that the shop was a small shop about 5 ft. x 9 ft. At that time, Ajmir who was employed in the said shop, was doing the work of ironing in the said shop. It is submitted that Ajmir has not implicated the applicant nos.2 and 3, hence, this shows that applicant nos.2 and 3 have been falsely implicated by witness Vijay. As far as this aspect [-3-] is concerned, it is seen that Ajmir was sitting on the floor behind the counter and he was doing the work of ironing. The deceased was standing at the counter. In such case, it was not possible for Ajmir to see all the persons who are outside the shop. Hence, because Ajmir has not stated the names of the applicants, it cannot be said that applicants were not present on the spot and they had not taken part in the incident. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the FIR wherein only name of applicant no.1 has been stated. It is pointed out that applicant nos.2 and 3 have not been named in the FIR. However, it is seen that in the FIR, complainant has also stated that there were two unknown persons. As stated earlier, eye witness Vijay has clearly implicated the applicants. Looking to the role of the applicants, it can be said that they shared common intention of the other accused persons. It is serious case in which two persons had been murdered in broad-day light. Looking to the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. [-4-] 7. Application is rejected and is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]