IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1038 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1038 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1038 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.352 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.352 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.352 OF 2007 Balgounda Daulata Patil ..Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr.Nitin Pradhan, senior Advocate for applicant. Mrs.Usha Kejriwal, A.P.P.for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 14TH NOVENBER, 2008. DATED : 14TH NOVENBER, 2008. DATED : 14TH NOVENBER, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This is an application for bail moved by the applicant, original accused No.1. An earlier bail application was withdrawn on 12th June, 2007. 2. The applicant along with others were charged amongst other offences, for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli after considering the evidence convicted three of the accused impugned in the Appeal for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also some other offences. - = : 2 : = - 3. While considering the evidence against the applicant, learned Sessions Judge had also considered, apart from the evidence of the complainant, the evidence of independent witness P.W.9 Prakash Balgounda Patil, who was present at the time of incident and has deposed so far as the presence of the applicant is concerned. The deceased, from the evidence of the doctor P.W.6 had as many as 23 injuries, almost all of them incised. The witnesses confirm to the presence of the applicant at the scene of offence and his role. 4. On behalf of the applicant, learned counsel submits that this would at the highest be a case of instigation and the prosecution has failed to establish common intention under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. No specific role is attributed to the applicant. 5. Having considered the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, it would not be possible to accept the submissions made on behalf of the applicant at this stage. Even though the applicant may be aged 65 years, in our opinion, considering the findings recorded by the learned Judge, this is not a fit case to grant bail. Hence application for bail is rejected. - = : 3 : = - (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)