1 APPA.174-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 174 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2010 Arjun Rangrao Patil ...Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra . ...Respondent. ---- Mr. Shirish Gupte i/b Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, Sr. Counsel for the Applicant. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the State. Mr. Haribhau Deshinge i.b Mr. Vijay Killedar, for Original complainant. --- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 04, 2011. P.C.:- 1 We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, and the learned APP for the State of Maharashtra. 2 In Sessions Case No.41 of 2006 in all six accused came to be tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, 143, 147, 148, 302, read with Section 149 and Section 120-B of IPC. The 2 APPA.174-2010 prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses and the defence examined one witness. On assessment of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur by his order dated 28.1.2010 has convicted all the accused for most of the offences i.e. accused nos.1 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, accused no.6 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-Part-I of IPC, and accused nos.2 to 5 are convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of IPC. All the accused have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 of IPC. 3 The present applicant was accused no.5 in the said case and he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of IPC along with accused no.2 Bapu alias Pratap Pralhad Patil. All the convicts are undergoing sentence. The present applicant has filed Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2010 and by this application he prays for being released on bail. The State of Maharashtra has filed Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2010 for enhancement of sentence and it has been admitted. 4 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial, and the prosecution case is based on 3 APPA.174-2010 a chance witness, PW-8-Arun Salunkhe. It was also submitted that PW-17 -Sarjerao Kadam turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case that the motor cycle with registration no.MXA-8204 was in fact sold to the accused-applicant by him and used in the crime. As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the two circumstances which held accused- applicant guilty viz. his telephone call to accused no.2 as per the evidence of PW-8 and the motor cycle claimed to have been sold by PW-17- Sarjerao Patil to the accused-applicant are weak pieces of evidence, and therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 5 Mrs. Pai, the learned APP for the State of Maharashtra opposes the application and has invited our attention to some of the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as against accused no. 5(the applicant herein) regarding the criminal conspiracy to eliminate both the deceased along with the accused no.2. 6 We have given our anxious considerations to the arguments advanced across the bar and we have also perused the oral depositions of the concerned witnesses viz. PW-3-Vinayak Patil, PW-8-Arun Salunkhe, PW-14-Datta Angre-Nodal Officer working in Idea Cellular Company Ltd., 4 APPA.174-2010 PW-15-Vikas Jadhav- Sub-Divisional Engineering of BSNL, PW-11- Mahadev Patil and PW-17-Sarjerao Kadam. We are satisfied that there is no case made out to release the applicant on bail during the pendency of the Appeal and by suspending the order under Section 389 of Cr.PC. Hence, this application is rejected. 7 However, the applicant is at liberty to apply for an early date of hearing of the Criminal Appeal after it is ready for final hearing. (U. D. SALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)