1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 930 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2010 1.RAMESH RANGRAO WALSANGE Age : 32 Sex : M ZINNATH SOCIETY LATUR 2.SURESH RANGRAO WALSANGE Age : 37 Sex : M ZINNATH SOCIETY, LATUR 3.MALANBAI RANGRAO WALSANGE Age : 67 Sex : F ZINNATH SOCIETY, LATUR ..APPLICANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH THROUGH S.H.O PS. GANDHI CHOWK LATUR ..RESPONDENT ... Shri Virendra Sakolkar, Advocate for applicants and Shri V.G.Godbharale, APP for respondent ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 15.7.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. The applicants are appellants in the Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2010 and original accused in Sessions Case No.30 of 2008. One Manisha 2 w/o Suresh was original accused No.4 in the Sessions trial along with the applicants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur while convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, directed them to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.300/- with default stipulation but acquitted them for the offence punishable under sections 498-A read with 34 of IPC. Accused No.4 Manisha was, however, acquitted of all the offences with which she was charged. The judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is dated 6.1.2010. 3. The prosecution case principally rests upon two written dying declarations and one oral dying declaration made to PW 3 Balaji – father of victim. On behalf of defencne, four witnesses were examined. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel for respective parties, we have gone through the two written dying declarations carefuly. Exhibit 50 is recorded by PW 6 Vikrant Gaikwad, Special Executive Magistrate and Exhibit 56 is recorded by PW 8 PSI Rejitwad. It appears that initially Crime No.32 of 2008 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC. 5. In addition to dying declarations, we have also considered the material brought on record on behalf of the prosecution so also the defence. Defence of the accused is manifold. Plea of alibi has been 3 taken by accused Ramesh (husband of victim). Owner of the Furniture Shop, where Ramesh works, was also examined by the defence in support of this plea. We have also gone through the oral evidence adduced by prosecution, while considering the bail application of the applicant. We have also taken into consideration the fact that applicants 1 to 3 were not on bail during the trial. 6. Prima facie, in our view, bail plea raised on behalf of accused No.2 Suresh and accused No.3 Malanbai can be considered favourably. So far request for releasing the applicant No.1 Ramesh on bail is concerned, at this stage, in our view, he is not eligible for grant of bail. 7. In the result :- (A) Criminal Application is rejected to the extent of applicant No.1 Ramesh. (B) Criminal Application is allowed to the extent of applicant No.2 Suresh and applicant No.3 Malanbai. They be released on furnishing PR bond of the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand ) with one surety in like amount. (C) Applicant No.2 Suresh and applicant No.3 Malanbai are further directed to report to Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur once in a 4 quarter and more specifically on second Sunday of the month concerned. The quarter shall commence from 1st day of August 2010. (D) Bail to be furnished in the trial Court. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl