IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1443 OF 2008 Mangesh Sambhaji Pawar and others .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms. Racheeta Dhuru, for the Applicant Mr. Y. M. Nakhawa, AGP, for the Respondent-State CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 13 April, 2009 P. C. 1. This is an application for bail, moved as the applicants/accused are convicted for the offence punishable under section 382 of I.P.C. and they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the incident had taken place on 8th February, 2006 and since then, the accused are behind the bars and they have undergone sentence of 3 years. She went through the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the complainant-Pandurang Yadav and also the relevant portions of the judgement. The learned prosecutor submitted that these three accused were caught red handed in Alto car which they stole from the Complainant on 8th February, 2006. He has further submitted that the applicants have been convicted for committing murder at Pune and they are undergoing life imprisonment. He has further submitted that the offence of murder was committed by the -2- applicants before stealing Alto Car from the Complainant and under such circumstances, the Bail, pending appeal may not be granted to the applicants. 3. Heard both the counsels. Perused judgement and relevant evidence. 4. Normally, if the Bail application pending appeal is made in the case of an offence punishable under section 382 or 395 of the Indian Penal Code and the fact that the applicants have under gone three years sentence would have also been a ground to grant them bail pending appeal. However, in the present case, the applicants are convicted for the commission of murder and also for the present offence. The sequence of commission of offences i.e. murder and thereafter theft of Alto Car adds the gravity of the offence. While considering the bail application under such matter, where offences are committed in sequence and thereafter the accused are convicted, the fact of conviction of such offences are very much co-related. Considering these facts, the bail application of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 is rejected. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) jpc/-