-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2157 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.348 OF 2005 Santosh Janglinath Kale and Ors. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents ... Mr. A.P.Mundergi with Mr.S.A.Ingawale i/b Revati Mohite Dere for Applicants Mr. M.A.Choudhari for original complainant. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 24,2005 DATE : JUNE 24,2005 DATE : JUNE 24,2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants, learned advocate for original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant nos.1, 3 and 5 have been convicted under Section 304 part II of IPC and -2- sentenced to R.I. for seven years. The other applicants have been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for four years. 3. In the said incident, one person i.e. Hanmant has received 14 injuries and lost his life and two persons were injured in the said incident i.e. P.W.9 Suryakant and P.W.10 Ravindra. In the said incident, P.W.10 Ravindra lost four teeth. The evidence of P.W.9 Suryakant and P.W.10 Ravindra clearly shows the involvement of all the accused in the incident. At this stage, the learned A.P.P. states that the State is filing appeal for enhancement of the sentences imposed on the applicants by the trial Court. 4. Looking to the evidence on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail even though the applicants were on bail during the trial. 5. Application for bail is rejected. [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] -3-