[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1570 OF 2008 Pramod Bhimrao Bhosle ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.A.Q.Ansari Advocate for Applicant Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 31, 2008 DATE : JULY 31, 2008 DATE : JULY 31, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No. 60 of 2007 of Karad Taluka Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 302 and 324 r.w. 149 of IPC. 3. The informant Samadhan has stated that the present applicant stabbed Prashant on his chest and left wrist with knife. When the informant tried to save Prashant, at that time, the applicant caused injuries to the informant. The informant has received two injuries i.e. incised wound over the [-2-] right wrist and incised wound on the left hand. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that co-accused have been granted bail. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that the role of assault by knife is attributed only to the present applicant and no such role has been attributed to the other accused persons, hence, there is no question of parity. 5. Thereafter the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the knife has not been sent to Finger Print Expert and the C.A. The learned APP has stated that the knife has been sent to CA. In my view, it may not be necessary to send the knife to the Finger Print Expert as eye witnesses have clearly named the applicant and stated the role played by him. There is sufficient material on record which implicates the applicant. Looking to the material on record, no case is made out for grant of bail. 6. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]