1 Cri.Appln.No.4476/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4476 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.564 OF 2011 Nanaksing s/o Ranjeet Tagare & ors. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 18th October, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Service of notice of the application is waived by learned A.P.P. 2. Heard. Perused. 3. The applicants/ accused have moved this application for bail in the present appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction for different offences namely :- (i) Conviction of the applicant/ accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 26(f) and 42(2) of the Indian 2 Cri.Appln.No.4476/2011 Forest Act and under Sections 353, 506 and Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ii) Conviction of applicant/ accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Maximum sentence imposed on the convicted accused is of two years. They have also been fined. Learned Advocate for the applicants/ accused submits that the substantive sentences have been suspended by the trial Court till 20th October 2011 and the fine amounts have been duly deposited in the trial Court. She further submits that, there has been no misuse of the liberty availed by the applicants/ accused while they were released on bail by the trial Court. 5. These facts are not disputed by the State. However, learned A.P.P. for the State contended that the offence committed by the applicants/ accused is a serious one i.e. dacoity coupled with assault on the public servant and, therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. Countering these submissions, learned Advocate Mrs. Jadhav for the applicants/ accused pointed out from the copies of the evidence that the observations made by the learned trial Court regarding culpability of the accused are misconceived inasmuch as 3 Cri.Appln.No.4476/2011 the observation that the gold chain produced before the trial Court was snatched, is contrary to the evidence of the complainant, who categorically averred that the gold chain produced before the Court, was not his gold chain which was in his neck at the material time, . She further pointed out from the evidence that the so called witnesses witnessing the assault on the complainant, the public servant, had refused to support the prosecution. 7. Considering these facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicants/ accused were on bail during the course of trial, the liberty prayed for deserves to be granted. Hence the order :- 8. The applicants/ accused shall be released on P.R. Bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) each with one or more sureties in the like amount subject to the following conditions: (i) They shall keep the police informed of their whereabouts from time to time. (ii) They shall keep the duly instructed Advocate present before the Court for conducting the present appeal. 9. Application stands disposed off accordingly. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cri4476.11