1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (APPA) NO.339 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.234 OF 2011. (AJAY SUBHASH MESHRAM & TWO OTHERS..VS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PSO YAVATMAL.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATE : MAY 20, 2011. Heard Mr. S.G.Loney, learned counsel for the Applicants/Appellants and Mr. D.B.Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted that the material portion of the evidence on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court to come to a conclusion that the appellants had attempted to commit murder of P.W. 1, is proved to be the omission by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. I have gone through the particular portion of cross-examination. The omission is in respect of the stitches only. It cannot be said that the material portion has been omitted to have been stated by P.W. 6. However, overall reading of evidence of P.W. 6 gives indication that there was no intention to cause death of P.W. 1. The weapons used by appellants No.1 and 3 were not of deadly nature. In the circumstances, the appellants may be able to demonstrate at the time of final hearing that they had not committed offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is possible that ultimately the offence proved against them might be under Section 324 or 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 It is noted that appellant No.2 Lalita Meshram has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code only. She is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, it is the case of the prosecution that she had instigated appellant Nos. 1 to 3 to commit the offence. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the whole judgment in this background also. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly objected for grant of bail, considering what is observed by me hereinabove, I am of the view that the merits of the case require that the appellants need to be granted bail. Moreover, the appellants are permanent residents of Yavatmal and they are not likely to run away. Hence, the applicants No.1 and 3 be released on bail in the sum of Rupees Fifteen Thousand each with one solvent surety in the like amount. The sentences imposed on the applicants No.1 and 3 shall stand suspended during the pendency of the appeal. As far as appellant No.2 is concerned, she has been granted bail by the trial Court in the sum of Rupees Fifteen Thousand. The same bail order to continue for her. She shall execute fresh bail bond. Her sentence also shall stand suspended during pendency of the appeal. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Hamdast granted. JUDGE RR..