1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 651 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 800 OF 2008 Shri Prakash Jagannath Thombare and ors. .. Applicants (Org.Accd.Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9) Vs. The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Sinnar Police Station, Sinnar, Dist. Nashik) .. Respondent Mr. S.P. Kadam for applicants. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JUNE 25, 2010. P.C. 1. This is an application for bail submitted by the original accused nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9. Criminal Application No. 901 of 2008 filed by the present applicants for bail was disposed as withdrawn on 21/10/2008. At the same time, accused nos. 2, 4 and 8 have already been released on 2 bail by this court. 2. In Sessions Case No. 86 of 2007, nine accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. By his judgment and order dated 17/7/2008 the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nashik was pleased to convict all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and all of them have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The said order of conviction and sentence has been challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 2008, which has been admitted on 20/8/2008. 3. As per the prosecution case the deceased Vilas s/o Bhagwan Pawar had married accused no. 6 – Usha d/o accused no.1 – Jagannath Thombre and accused no.2 – Ujwala in the month of February 2003 and she begot two children from the said wedlock. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the brothers of accused no.6 and accused nos. 7 and 9 are her cousins and accused no. 8 is her uncle. Matrimonial disputes were pending between the deceased and accused no. 6 in the court of JMFC at Nashik. She had also filed private complaint against the deceased. The deceased was married 3 twice before he got married with accused no. 6. As per the prosecution, on 11/1/2007 the deceased had gone to attend the court and thereafter he went to the house of his in-laws at village Vadzire to meet his daughters and accused no. 6 was staying in the said village along with other accused. He was assaulted and forced to take poison. He was shifted to the civil hospital at Nashik and he died on 13/1/2007 at about 6 p.m. API Sapkale (PW 5) had recorded the statement of the deceased while under treatment and PW 6 – Shivkumar Avalkanthe had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at Exh. 60. 4. We have perused the depositions of PW 5 – API Sapkale as well as PW 6 – Shivkumar Avalkanthe and the dying declaration at Exh. 60. As per the prosecution case accused no. 6 had administered poison to the deceased and her brothers as well as uncle had assaulted him. PM report at Exh. 56 shows a healed abrasion injury near the left elbow of the deceased and no other injury. The cause of death was poisoning as per the post mortem report. There is no distinction between the role assigned by the prosecution to accused nos.3, 5, 7 and 9 on one hand and accused nos. 2, 4 and 8 on the other hand and, therefore, in our opinion, there is no reason to deny bail to the present applicants i.e. accused nos.3, 5, 7 and 9 4 and the role assigned to these applicants is not the same as assigned to the main accused i.e. accused no. 6 – Usha, the wife of the deceased. 5. Hence, we allow this application and direct the release of all the four applicants on bail on each of them furnishing a bail bound in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicants shall report to the concerned police station once in two weeks during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 2008. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)