MP 1 BA1452_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1452 OF 2011 Ramdas Balu Bodake ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Smt. Anita A. Agarwal, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt.P.P. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER 2011 P. C. : Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant, who is accused No.1 in crime No.21 of 2010 registered with Lonawala (Rural) Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks to be released on bail. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that because of earlier disputes about the agricultural land and some other disputes, on 27.02.2010, at about noon time, present applicant along with three others went to the field of first informant Babu Udekar. The said Babu Udekar and his family members were harvesting paddy crop at that time. After reminding about the old quarrels, the present applicant abused and assaulted on the head of Dyaneshwar, who is brother of Babu Udekar, with a sword. Another accused Rohidas assaulted Maruti with iron rod. When Babu and his brother Namdev intervened, they were also assaulted with sword and iron rod by the said Rohidas and the present applicant. Some other accused also assaulted with kick and fist blows. Dyaneshwar was taken to the hospital but was declared dead before admission. MP 2 BA1452_11 4. Post-mortem Report reveals that he had suffered several injuries on the head including incised wound as well as fracture of the left parietal region and temporal region. Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to injury to the head with laceration to the brain. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that other accused persons have been granted bail and on the principle of parity, the present applicant should also be granted bail. On perusal of the record it appears that, two accused namely Indubai and Kalpana and some other unknown persons had allegedly beaten with kicks and fist blows. They were not armed with any weapons. Taking into consideration the role of those two accused and the fact that they are women, bail was granted. Rohidas was also granted bail because F.I.R. did not reveal that he had assaulted the deceased with iron rod. In the F.I.R., only the present applicant Ramdas is shown to have assaulted on the head of the deceased Dyaneshwar with sword and this is corroborated by the statements of other witnesses as well as by the post-mortem report. Taking into consideration the number of injuries on the head resulting in death, and the role played by the present applicant, it will not be in the interests of justice to grant bail to the applicant in the serious offence of murder. If bail is granted, there is every possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is in custody since February, 2010. That also cannot be a ground for bail in a murder case. 6. Therefore, the application stands rejected. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune shall expedite the trial and dispose of the case as early as possible, and in any case, by the end of April, 2012. (J. H. BHATIA, J)