1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.443 of 2010 [Montu alias Yogendra N. Varma Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Adwait Manohar, Adv., for the applicant. Mrs. K. Joshi, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 01st April, 2010. 1. This is an application for regular bail. 2. The applicant has been named as accused in Crime No. 20/09 for offences under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station, Virur, Distt. Chandrapur. 3. The bail is prayed on various grounds, inter alia :- [a] That, involvement of accused, according to prosecution, is similar to that of Raju son of Gangadhar Bhong. [b] No specific acts are 2 attributed to the applicant. [c] Said Raju Bhong has been granted bail by this Court. [d] The main accused, against whom it is alleged that he has given the contract of eliminating the deceased, has been released on bail in Criminal Application No. 140 of 2010. 4. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Adwait Manohar for the applicant and learned APP Mrs. Joshi for the State. 5. Perused the Case Diary and orders passed by this Court in Criminal Application Nos. 140 and 159 both of 2010 granting bail to two different accused persons. 6. The charge-sheet is already filed. 7. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. 8. Apart from the statement made against accused inter se and confessional statement of Lalit Ramesh Raut, at this stage, there is adequate material available on record involving the applicant. 9. The case of Raju Bhong is not 3 comparable with that of the applicant. Raju was sheerly a driver of the vehicle. 10. In so far as the case of main accused  Vangipuram, to whom the bail is granted in Criminal Application No. 140 of 2010 is concerned, it is seen that the said accused is not granted bail considering the nature of his involvement in the case. The said accused has been released on bail mainly because of his age and ill-health, as is clearly spelt out in para 4 of the order. 11. In the premises, as emerged and discussed herein before, the applicant does not have a chance of grant of bail. 12. Bail application is, therefore, rejected. Judge |Hedau|