1 cri-appa-73-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 73 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2010 1. Shahaji Laxman Ingale 2. Ankush Laxman Ingale .. Applicants (Org.Accd.Nos.6 and 7) Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ujwal Agandsurve for applicants. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. Mr. Prakash K. Deshmukh for original complainant. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 22, 2011. P.C. 1. Leave to delete applicant no.2 with liberty to file separate bail application for him in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2010, which he has filed. 2 cri-appa-73-11 1. Heard Mr. Gupte the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Agandsurve for the applicant – accused no.6 who prays for being released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2010 filed by him and which has been admitted. The applicant – accused no.6, along with other seven accused, has been convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2008. The applicant – accused no.6 was on bail in the said case and as of now he is undergoing the sentence. 2. As per the prosecution case, there was an unlawful assembly formed by all the eight accused near the house of Somnath Bhoyi on 20/3/2008 (around 9 a.m.) and some of them were armed with deadly weapons like sword, sticks, scythes etc. They are all residents of village Sangam and they assaulted Arjun Gorakh Ingale, the son-in-law of Somnath Tukaram Kale. Arjun died a homicidal death, which is not in dispute. The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses in support of its case to point out that the accused had caused the homicidal death of Arjun and had formed an unlawful assembly for the same. The prosecution further claimed that PW 8 – Somnath Tukaram Kale (complainant) was the eye 3 cri-appa-73-11 witness and the trial court has heavily relied on the evidence of the said witness. The oral depositions copies of all the 13 witnesses have been annexed to this application and we have perused the depositions of PW 8 as well as the medical evidence and we are satisfied that prima facie case has been made out by the applicant – accused no.6 to suspend the order of sentence and release him on bail, with certain conditions, during the pendency of his appeal. The learned APP, while opposing the application pointed out that some criminal cases have been lodged against the applicant – accused no.6 and they are pending. The record indicates that some NCs have been lodged and there is no charge-sheet filed or any further steps have been taken in such cases. 3. We, therefore, allow this application and direct that the applicant – accused no.6 be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount, unless required in some other case. In addition, the applicant – accused no.6 shall report to the Akluj Police Station on every Sunday and Wednesday between 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. till the pending appeal is decided. At the same time, the applicant-accused no.6 shall not engage himself in any act, causing nuisance or threats to the witnesses who have been examined 4 cri-appa-73-11 in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2008. 4. This appeal be clubbed and heard with Criminal Appeal Nos.1, 2 and 37 of 2010. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)