1 APPA 745.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 745 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2008 Mr. Sachin Ajit Bhole. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 419 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2008 Mr. Kundan Harishchandra Dhule & Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for the Applicants. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 26th JULY 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. The Applicants were convicted for life out of 9 accused persons, 6 accused persons were acquitted. The learned Counsel for the Applicants prays for bail pending Appeal. 2 APPA 745.11.sxw 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that by applying principle of parity, the Applicants' case is required to be considered on merits. Though there are eyewitnesses to the incident, their evidence is shaky and not reliable. In the alternative, the learned Counsel submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, the Applicants cannot be said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 4. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants were arrested on 10.2.2005. Both were convicted. They are in jail since last 5 to 6 years and considering pendency of appeal in this Court, it is desirable to release the Applicant on bail. The learned Counsel for the Applicants placed reliance on the following Judgments :- (1) Baul and Anr. V/s. State of U.P. reported in (AIR 1968 SC 728). (2) Kashmira Singh V/s State of Punjab reported in (1977 SCC (Cri.) 559). (3) Atmaram Zingaraji V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998 Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 272). (4) Smt. Akhtari Bi V/s. State of M.P. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 355). (5) Surinder Siongh @ Shingara Singh V/s. State of Punjab reported in (2005 Cri.L.J. 4119).\ 3 APPA 745.11.sxw 5. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of the eyewitnesses to the incident established that the Applicants had committed serious crime. They assaulted the deceased with dangerous weapon like chopper. PW-1, PW-6 and PW-7, who are eyewitnesses, were examined. There is motive behind crime and considering the fact that the State had filed Appeal against the order of acquittal and it is admitted by this Court, there is no case for the Applicants to be released on bail. 6. We have considered the record, the Judgments cited above and submissions advanced by the learned Counsel. 7. Considering the evidence of the eyewitnesses, we find that there is a strong prima-facie case made out against the Applicant. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to consider the issue by applying principle of parity in respect of the Applicants. 8. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the Appeal filed by Applicants is pending in this Court since the year 2008 and the Applicants are behind bar since last 6 years. 9. This Court is taking up jail appeals of the year 2004/ 2005. Considering the submissions advanced, on the facts of the case, and the evidence brought on record, we are not inclined to release the Applicants on bail. The Applications stands rejected. 4 APPA 745.11.sxw 10. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that hearing of the Appeal be expedited. This request would be considered at an appropriate stage. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)