1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.549 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2008 Avdesh Ramhit Rai and Anr. .. Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Ganesh Gole for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 9TH JUNE, 2010. P.C. Heard Mr.Gole, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Adsule, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application for bail has been placed only for applicant no.1, who was original accused no.3. Criminal Appeal no.40 of 2008 has been filed by original accused nos.2 and 3 and the same is pending. The original accused no.2 had filed Criminal Application no.824 of 2008 for being released on bail and it came to be rejected on 22nd August, 2009. Admittedly, applicant no.1 had not applied for being released on bail earlier and this is his first application. Mr.Gole submitted that the case of applicant no.1 is required to be distinguished from the case of accused no.2 and he referred to the observations made in paragraph 2 of the order dated 22.8.2008 passed in Criminal Application no.824 of 2008. Mr.Gole submitted S 2 that P.W.3, who is the sole eye witness had turned hostile and recovery of clothes which prosecution claim to have made, read with the C.A. Report indicated that human blood stains were detected on the clothes of applicant no.1 but the blood group could not be detected whereas the C.A. report indicated that the clothes of accused no.2 were stained with blood group “B” which was that of the deceased. As per Mr.Gole this detection of blood group and the role attributed would be sufficient ground to distinguish the role of accused no.3 so as to release him on bail. He also referred to the medical evidence pointing out that the death of the victim had taken place before 8 pm on 23.7.2006. 3. We have considered the depositions of P.W.3 as well as P.W.7 and prima facie we are satisfied that the involvement of accused no.3 has been supported by the C.A. report and for the reasons stated in the order dated 22nd August, 2008 this application must also fail. The same is hereby rejected. 4. The applicants are at liberty to apply for early hearing of Criminal Appeal no.40 of 2008 as and when the paperbook is ready. (ANOOP.V.MOHTA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)