IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.1212 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1212 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1212 OF 2009 Along with Criminal Application No.196 of 2009 In Criminal Application No.1212 of 2009 1.Dilip s/o Kanha Pawse; 2.Prannath Eknath Pawse, .. Applicants. Vs The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent. Mr V.V.Gangurde, for the applicants. Mr J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the respondent- State. Mr S.K.Chaurasiya,i/b Shri A.M.Saraogi, for the original complainant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 22/04/200 DATE : 22/04/200 DATE : 22/04/2009 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.I-171/08 of Shil-Dighar police station, Dist-Thane. The said crime has been registered against the applicants for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 325, 324,323, 504,506,143,147,148,149 of IPC and sections 4,27 of Arms Act and Section 37(1), 135 of Bombay Police Act. 3. In the present case, including the applicants, there are 35 accused. I have perused the statements of the complainant-Ramesh Gondhali and one of the injured witnesses Bhagwan Ghondhali. I have also perused the statements of other eye-witnesses. It is significant to note that in the first statement of the complainant and the statement of Bhagwan, they have not named the applicant-Dilip Powse. It appears that there was a fight between the two groups and the fight was over an issue as to who should play cricket in the open ground. The accused persons were armed with sharp edged weapons and sticks. Insofar as the applicants are concerned, they were armed with sticks. The complainant as well as Bhagwan Gondhali, both, have stated that Prannath Pawse was armed with stick and he assaulted the deceased along with other accused. It is true that the other eye-witnesses have named Dilip Pawse, but they have not attributed any specific overt act to him. Moreover, the Post Mortem notes show that the deceased sustained sixteen injuries, out of which, eleven were inflicted with sharp edged weapons and the remaining injuries are either on leg or arm of the deceased. Keeping that in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to give benefit to applicant no.1-Dilip Pawse and grant his prayer for bail. Insofar as applicant no.2-Prannath Eknath Pawse is concerned, his prayer for bail is rejected. . Applicant No.1-Dilip Kanha Pawse is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to conditions that applicant no.1 shall not enter village Babharli, within the jurisdiction of police station Shil-Dighar, for a period of three months from today and thereafter he shall report to the concerned police station on every Saturday between 10 and 11 am till conclusion of the trial. He shall keep informed his address to the concerned police station where he proposes to stay during the aforementioned period of three months and shall report to the nearest police station from the place of his residence on every Saturday between 10 and 11 am. . In view of the disposal of Application No.1212 of 2009, the intervenor’s Application no.196 of 2009 is also disposed of. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)