1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1531 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.819 OF 2005 Naresh Magan Patel .. Applicant V/s State of Maharashtra (Malad P.S.) .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1532 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.819 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.694 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.715 OF 2005 Mahendra Magan Patel .. Applicant V/s State of Maharashtra (Malad P.S.) .. Respondent Dr.Yug Mohit Chaudhry for the applicants. Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 22nd December, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Accused Nos.1 & 2 have now 2 applied for bail by way of these applications. Accused Nos.6 & 7 have already been granted bail in terms of the order dated 22.03.2006 passed in the Criminal Bail Application No.5171 of 2005. 2. As regards the Accused Nos.1 & 2 the prosecution is essentially relying on the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW20. While considering the evidence of PW1 and PW20 on the earlier occasion, this Court in its order dated 22.03.2006 has prima facie opined that the presence of PW1 is doubtful. In so far as the PW20 is concerned, it was noticed that he has conceded that he was not able to see the assailants because of darkness. Thus evidence of PW1 and PW20 will have to be discarded. That leaves us with evidence of PW3. The same is criticized by the applicants before this Court on the ground that the statement of PW3 was recorded after three days of the incident. Moreover there is discrepancy in the number of assailants mentioned by PW3 and that by PW20. Even if this argument may not be of any avail to the applicants, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that if the prosecution has approached with the clear case that more than one 3 witnesses were present on the scene of offence and were eye witnesses, but at the end of analysis, it is required to depend only on one witness, in such a case, the accused is entitled for grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal. 3. More so, in the present case, the evidence of PW18 who is Doctor by profession, has accepted in the cross-examination that the injuries found on the deceased cannot be attributed to the weapons which were recovered from the applicants before this Court, i.e. Accused Nos.1 & 2. The weapons recovered from them is pair of scissors. In that case, even for this reason, the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the crime becomes doubtful. We are conscious of the fact that the prosecution has pressed into service section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, but that is the matter which will have to be examined at the hearing of the appeal while analysing the entire evidence in detail. 4. For the time being, we are inclined to grant bail to the applicants before this Court also because of the fact that the Accused Nos.6 & 7 have already been granted bail although the prosecution case against them is that they used weapons like chopper and gupti to 4 assault the deceased. 5. The Applicants have also invited our attention to the fact that the prosecution case is that the PW3 and PW20 were carrying plates containing food items and at that time they were assaulted by the assailants. However, the spot panchanama makes no reference to any food remains found on the ground or the spot where the incident in question took place. Suffice it to observe that the applicants have made out a formidable case for grant of bail. 6. We therefore allow these applications and direct release of Accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail, on the same terms and conditions on which Accused Nos.6 & 7 have been released on bail. The operative order shall read as follows:- “Applicants /Accused Nos.1 & 2 be released on their P.R.Bond of Rs.10,000/- each with one solvent surety, each, in the like amount, if not required in any other offence. They shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a week for six months, and thereafter once in a fortnight for one year, and, then thereafter once in two months till the appeal is disposed of. They shall not tamper with the witnesses nor try to contact them, in any manner whatsoever.” 5 7. Criminal Application Nos.1531/2011 and 1532/2011 stand disposed of. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)