abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 362 OF 2008 Mahendra Sahebrao Panmand .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondent Mr.K.S. Patil for the applicant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has been charged (C.R. No.259/2006 of Haveli Police Station, Pune) for the offence punishable under sections 307, 148, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short is that Harshad Dhanavade, Pintu, Amit Chorghe and three other persons assaulted Yusuf on 30th November 2006 at about 6.00 p.m. by using swords and sickle. Though the applicant is - 2 - alleged to be one of the assailants, he is not specifically named in the FIR. The assailants intended to kill Yusuf who was seriously injured but survived the assault. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Vishal Dhamale was granted bail by this Court by an order dated 16th August 2007 on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and no weapon was seized from him. He submitted that the case of the applicant is similar to Vishal Dhamale inasmuch as the applicant has also not been named in the FIR and no weapon was recovered from him. He also submitted that relying upon the decision of this Court in Vishal Dhamale’s matter, another co-accused Sagar Dhanavade, who was also not named in the FIR, was granted bail by the Sessions Court. He submitted that the case of the applicant is similar to those co-accused and therefore the applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned A.P.P., however, submitted that the applicant had earlier filed three bail applications before the Sessions Court and all the applications have been rejected. He pointed out that the third application filed on the ground of parity has also been rejected. - 3 - 6. I have perused the order passed by the Sessions Court in the third bail application in which as regards the contention of parity, the learned Sessions Judge rejected it in one sentence which reads: "Role played by this accused no.2 is not on par with accused nos.3 and 4 who have been released earlier on bail." The learned Sessions Judge has not given any reasons for his conclusion that role of the present applicant has different than the role played by the accused nos.3 and 4 who have been released on bail. 7. When asked by me, learned A.P.P. was unable to point out any difference in the role between the applicant and the accused nos.3 and 4 except to say that a sickle alleged used by the applicant has been recovered from accused no.1. Learned A.P.P. was however unable to state how the discovery of the sickle allegedly used by the applicant made by the accused no.1 can be used against the applicant. Assuming that it can be so used, the question would be a probative value of that evidence. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the victim survived and there is no possibility of the - 4 - offence being converted to an offence of higher grade punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. and also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is in custody for more than 14 months (from 5th December 2006) and also considering the nature of the evidence against the applicant, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER The applicant be released on bail in connection with the offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond of Rs.35,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement nor give any threats to any of the prosecution witnesses. (b) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once a week on every Monday between 3.00 and 5.00 p.m. and shall also attend the Sessions Court on every date fixed for the trial. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)