1 APPA 867/11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 867 OF 2011 IN APPEAL NO.361 OF 2011 Nagesh Chanavirgonda Patil : Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. Mr.Nitin Pardhan with Mr. Anand S Patil for the applicant. Ms. S V Gajare, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & K U CHANDIWAL, JJ DATE : 27TH JULY 2011 P.C. 1 Heard. 2 Applicant a life convict prays for bail pending hearing of appeal. The applicant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with three co-accused. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are no incriminating circumstances against him. The evidence of PW Nos.6,7 and 8 who have been examined as eye witnesses to the incident in question is not reliable. The applicant was involved merely because, he was at the relevant 2 APPA 867/11 time a Municipal Councilor. The evidence in respect of identification parade of the accused and the recovery of weapons is not worth reliable. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the light of the fact that final hearing of the appeal would take more than five years, the applicant be released on bail. 4 Learned APP for the State/Respondent submits that there are three eye witnesses to the incident including one injured eye witness. The prosecution has led credible evidence. The deceased suffered several injuries. The deceased died due to assault wherein the applicant was involved. 5 We have perused the record, the deposition of eye witnesses i.e. PW Nos.6, 7 and 8 and also the medical evidence. PW No.6, who was injured in the incident, has named the applicant as assailant of the deceased. There is strong prima facie case made out by the prosecution against the applicant. Considering the nature of evidence and role attributed to the applicant, it is not desirable to release the applicant on bail. The application is rejected. (K U CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)