1 Appa : 1480/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1480 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.697 OF 2010 Pamu @ Pandurang Shivram .... Applicants Kolape & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent thru PSO Natepute P.S. Mr. Girish Agarwal, Advocate for applicants. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 14th December, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and APP for the State. 2. This application is for bail by the appellant no.1, (original accused no.2), who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The appeal has been admitted on 23rd September 2010. The other appellants i.e. appellants no.2 and 3, who are original accused nos. 1 and 3 have already been released on bail by the order dated 23rd September 2010, by this Court. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants states that at that time, he had 2 Appa : 1480/2010 not pressed the application for bail on behalf of appellant no. 1 and sought liberty to file fresh application for bail as at the relevant time, he did not have copy of notes of evidence available with him. The reason for appellant no.2 being released on bail was his age of 70 years and the role attributed to him in the incident alleged. As regards appellant no.3, the reason for granting bail was that she is a young lady with children and she had not played any major role in the incident. 3. Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to paragraph 7 of the judgment wherein the trial Court refers to the contradictions and omissions in the narration of the eye witnesses. The trial Court has ignored those differences as minor contradictions and omissions. In view of the extent of contradictions, the appellants have a chance of succeeding in the appeal. Appellant no. 1 has been on bail throughout the trial. There is no allegation that the appellant had mis-used the liberty granted to him during the pendency of the trial. In the circumstances, in my opinion the appellant can be released on bail with imposition of appropriate conditions upon him. Hence, the order. O R D E R Appellant No. 1 be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, pending the hearing of the appeal. The appellant shall report to the Natepute Police Station once in 15 3 Appa : 1480/2010 days till disposal of the appeal. He shall also not leave the jurisdiction of the Police Station without seeking prior permission of the Senior Inspector of Natepute Police Station. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)