: 1 : A-358-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.187 OF 2011 Jugesh Laxmi Sahani & Anr. .. Applicants v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Ms. Mallika Ingale for the applicants Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the State ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, in the event of none payment of fine. This judgment is delivered on 21st February, 2011. The applicants have prayed for bail pursuant to this application. 2. I have heard learned Counsel Mrs. Ingale appearing on behalf of the applicants. After having gone through the evidence of the : 2 : A-358-11=.doc prosecution witnesses who have stated about the incident, I am inclined to observe that the evidence as regards the incident and the involvement of both the applicants cannot be doubted. Both the applicants and victim knew each other and, therefore, there is no question of making special efforts to prove the identity of the applicants. 3. According to learned Counsel for the applicants, applicant no.2 had suffered injuries at the time of the incident and the prosecution has not explained the said injuries. According to her, this factor runs in her favour and that it is a good ground for grant of bail. In support of this submission, she has relied upon the judgment in the case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1976, SC 2263. It is admitted by the Counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.2 was arrested after 48 hours of incident. He had suffered wounds which required stitches. According to her, the Police officer who has carried out investigation states that the applicant no.2 had suffered injuries in the course of the incidence. She immediately proceeded to state that the police officer was not present at the time of incidence. If this be so, how the police officer would know about the injuries suffered by the applicant no.2. Even in Statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused no.2 has not narrated his story as : 3 : A-358-11=.doc to how he suffered injuries at the time of incidence. Accused no.2 has not produced any material to show as to under what circumstances, he was admitted in the hospital and what was the version of the applicant no.2 before the doctor who treated him. In view of these factual aspects, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants as regards non explanation of the injuries on the person of the applicant no.2 would not form a ground to get a bail. 4. Learned advocate Mrs. Ingale submitted that the incident took place at the spur of moment. After having considered the relevant evidence, it is clear that there was some dispute between the applicants on one hand and the victim on the other as regards placement of their stalls, where both of them were carrying on their business. It is not as if that the applicants and the victim met at a particular spot and some conversation took place which resulted into incident took place. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants contended that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, the conviction of the applicants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not justifiable and it is possible for the Court to take a view at the stage of final hearing of the application that the applicants can be convicted : 4 : A-358-11=.doc under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code. She, therefore, submitted that the applicants are entitled to bail. Even if this argument is accepted for the time being on facts, no case for bail is made out. Hence, the applicants cannot be released on bail. In view of the above, application deserves to be rejected. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Application is rejected. (ii) Looking to the present pendency, request for listing the appeal for early hearing is rejected. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)