abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 648 OF 2008 Pramod R. Thombare .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Sameer Pradhan for the applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 25TH MARCH 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No.209/2007 registered with Kurla Railway Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 209 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case in short is that the applicant owed certain money to Salim Nasruddin Shaikh (for short "the complainant"). Both the applicant and - 2 - the complainant are coolies operating at Kurla Railway Station. When the complainant demanded money, the applicant called him at platform no.5 and 6. As the complainant went to platform no.5 and 6, the applicant along with co-accused persons assaulted the complainant with knives and attempted to commit his murder. The complainant was chased and was again assaulted, but he survived. The applicant and co-accused were arrested in connection with the crime. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that one of the co-accused Shankar Maniram Saroj has been granted bail by the Sessions Court by order dated 2nd February 2008. He submitted that the case of the applicant is not different than Saroj and, therefore, the applicant should be granted bail on parity. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the role of the applicant was entirely different than the role of Saroj. Assault was made at the instance of the applicant who owed money to the complainant. Therefore, there was clear motive for the applicant to assault the complainant which was absent in case of Saroj who has been granted bail. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that Saroj was not carrying any weapon while the applicant was carrying a knife as stated by the complainant in the FIR. - 3 - 6. Blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the applicant in pursuance of the statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The clothes were sent for chemical analysis and the report of the Chemical Analyser is against the applicant. In the circumstances, the case of the applicant is certainly different than the case of Saroj who has been granted bail. 7. In my view, there is prima facie material connecting the applicant to the crime. The offence is a serious one which is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment upto 10 years. In the circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to bail. Hence, application for bail is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)