AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.216 OF 2010 Suresh Maruti Shinde (Waikar). ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vinayak K. Chaudhari i/b Mr. V.V. Purwant for the applicant. Ms. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The applicant was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.6 of 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Rahul Chavan and for AJN 2 having attempted to commit murder of Sandip Gaikwad. The applicant was tried along with three others. One of the accused i.e. accused 3 was murdered after he was released on bail during the course of trial. Hence, he could not stand the trial. The applicant was, inter alia, sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal filed by the applicant is admitted by this court. This is his application for bail. 2. We have heard counsel for the applicant in support of the bail application. We have also heard learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that two of the eye-witnesses PW-11 Sandip and PW-9 Prakash Kamble are interested eye-witnesses and, therefore, learned Judge should not have placed reliance on their evidence. Counsel submitted that PW-10 Vilas Kashid is not an eye- witness. He has not seen the incident and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on his evidence. Counsel pointed AJN 3 out that learned Judge glossed over the injures suffered by the applicant. He drew our attention to the injuries suffered by the applicant and submitted that in fact it is the deceased and the prosecution witnesses, who were the aggressors. Counsel pointed out that due to the injuries suffered by the applicant, he was admitted in the hospital on 14/10/2007 and was discharged on 3/11/2007. This itself indicates that the deceased and the prosecution witnesses were the aggressors. 4. It is not possible for us to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. There are three eye- witnesses to the incident. They have given graphic description of the incident in question. Counsel is not right when he says that PW-10 Vilas Kashid has not witnessed the incident. PW-10 Vilas Kashid is an independent witness. He has categorically stated in his evidence that the applicant had a sword in his hand and he assaulted the deceased along with the other accused, who also had weapons in their hands. It appears that the AJN 4 prosecution witnesses felt that because of the instigation of the deceased, PW-20 Ranjit Kamble kidnapped the daughter of the applicant. It appears that due to this, the incident in question had taken place. It is true that the applicant had suffered injuries. The injuries suffered by the applicant, in our prima facie, opinion are not serious injuries. PW-15 Dr. Pawar has stated that these injuries could be caused due to handling of a weapon. Certificate Ex-103 is on record. These injuries prima facie establish the applicant's presence. The exact impact of the injuries could only be assessed at the time of final hearing of the appeal. In our prima facie opinion, involvement of the applicant in the incident is established by the eye- witnesses. Evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon if it inspires confidence. In this case, it does inspire confidence. In the circumstances no bail can be granted to the applicant. Application is rejected. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]