1 appln1066-11++ agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1066 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.626 OF 2011 Nadeem Sohel Ahmed Shaikh & Another ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.879 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2011 Samir @ Sammi Idris Khan ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.772 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2011 Abdul Bari @ Zinka Mohd Shafi Ansari & Another ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr.Mohsin Khan for the applicant in Criminal Application No.1066 of 2011. Ms.Anjali R. Awasthi for the applicant in Criminal Appeal No.772 of 2011. Mr.Shaikh Sameer A.S. for the applicant in Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2011. Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for the respondent. CORAM : J.H. Bhatia, J. DATE : 25th August, 2011. P.C. : 1. Criminal Application No.1066 of 2011 is filed by original accused Nos.2 and 3, Criminal Application No.772 of 2011 is filed by original 2 appln1066-11++ accused Nos.1 and 2 through a different advocate and Criminal Application No.879 of 2011 is filed by original accused No.4. All these accused persons have filed appeals against order of conviction under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Accused No.3 was also convicted under the Arms Act and was sentence for rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. At the outset, it may be stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 had previously filed a bail application, which was withdrawn, most probably because the learned Judge was not inclined to grant bail. Accused Nos.1 and 4 have filed bail applications for the first time pending the appeals. Normally, second bail application filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 would not be considered, but as in view of the facts and circumstances I am inclined to grant bail to accused Nos.1 and 4 and the case against them cannot be distinguished from the case against accused Nos.2 and 3, I am also inclined to entertain their second application for bail. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against all the named accused persons alleging that they had assaulted him with weapons and taken away amount of Rs.17,000/- from the counter of his hotel. Therefore, the accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 394 & 397 I.P.C. The learned counsels for the accused – appellants pointed out that the Trial Court did not believe the evidence about possession and use of weapons at the time of offence. They also pointed that the injuries could be 3 appln1066-11++ possible merely because of falling on sharp object. The weapons, which were allegedly seized, were not produced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court also found discrepancies in the evidence. In view of large pendency of appeals against conviction, where accused are in jail, is very large. Appeals are not likely to come up for hearing within a short time. 3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, Accused – Applicants be released on bail on execution of P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with solvent surety in the like amount, with further condition that they shall report at the Shivajinagar Police Station on every Tuesday and Friday between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. 5. All the criminal applications are disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.H. Bhatia, J.)