cr-appa-1345-11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1345 OF 2011 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2009 Mr. Sandeep Uttam Gavare ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra At the instance of Inspector of Police, Nigadi Police Station, Pune. ..Respondent Mr. A.P.Mundari Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Kuldeep Patil for Applicant Mrs. Gadhavi A.P.P. for the State CORAM : S.A.BOBDE AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J. RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 19, 2011. DECLARED ON : DECEMBER 23, 2011. P.C.(PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.): 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant had earlier preferred an application for bail which came to be rejected by this Court (Coram: Mrs. Ranjana Desai and Mrs. V.K.Tahilramani,JJ.) by order dated 30.3.2010. The applicant has again preferred this fresh application for bail. 1 cr-appa-1345-11.doc 3. The learned Senior Counsel stated that Nitin is the deceased in the present case and the role attributed to the present applicant is not that of assault on Nitin but assault on P.W.1 Avinash and P.W. 4 Suresh who are injured witnesses in this case. The fresh ground on which this application has been made, is that the co-accused No.3 Umesh was granted bail by this Court (Coram: Smt. Ranjana Desia and Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.) and the role attributed to the present applicant is similar to that of Umesh. He thus, submitted that it is a case of parity. However, on going through the evidence, it is observed that there is no parity because co-accused Umesh assaulted only P.W. 4 Suresh and not P.W. 1 Avinash. Moreover, Umesh was armed with stick, whereas, the present applicant assaulted Avinash and P.W.4 Suresh on the head with a chopper/sattur. Thus, it is not a case of parity. 4. P.W.5 Dr. Sanjay Deodhar examined P.W.4 Suresh. As regards, injury to Suresh, Dr. Deodhar has stated as under: “13. I examined him at about 2.30 a.m. of 8.2.2006 and noticed the following injuries: 1) CLW over parieto occipital region, 10 x 2 c.m. 2) Swelling and haemotoma over left leg. 3) Swelling and haemotoma on left forearm and ulna was injured. 14) The CT scan of brain revealed in subdural 2 cr-appa-1345-11.doc haemotoma, (maximum thickness 4 mm) in right temporo parietal region. This subdural haematoma was seen in left temporal region. Subarachnoid haemorrhage was seen. 15) The MRI of the brain showed pituitary macro- adinoma with fluid level probably old pituitary apoplexy. Right temporal low contusion was seen with bilateral parietal sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. The X- ray showed the fracture of left ulna fixed with metallic. This was post operative X-ray. Metallic plate was placed in our hospital. 16) The patient was admitted as indoor patient for 8 to 15 days. 17) The patient was operated for fracture on left ulna. For fixing metallic plate. 18) All the injuries were fresh, within 24 hours. They were caused by sharp, hard and blunt object. I have issued the certificate now shown to me. It bears my signature. Its contents are correct. It is at Exh. 32. 19) The injury Nos. 2 and 3 of the patient are possible by iron rod, article No.3 now shown to me. The injury No.1 is possible either by sickle, article No.1 and article No.2 the chopper known as Sattur marked Article No.17. The injuries had they been not attended in time, could have resulted in the death of patient in ordinary course of nature.” 5. According to P.W.4 Suresh, the present applicant dealt blows with chopper on his head which is consistent with the medical evidence. The injuries as seen from the evidence 3 cr-appa-1345-11.doc of P.W.5 Dr. Sanjay Deodhar are very serious and grievous in nature. Moreover, from the evidence, it is clear that all the accused persons went together to assault Nitin and in the course of the incident, the present applicant assaulted P.W.1 Avinash and P.W.4 Suresh. 6. In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to grant bail. Application is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.A.BOBDE, J. ] 4