IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLICATION NO.1777 OF 2008 Hasan @ N.R.Shaikh ... Applicant V/s State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri Sudhir Halli i/b Subhash Hulyalkar for Applicant Mr S.S.Pednekar, APP for Respondent CORAM : V.C.DAGA,J. DATED : 3rd July 2008 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned advocate for applicant-accused and learned APP. 2. In CR No.8 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302,143,147,148,149 r/w 34 of IPC. This application is moved after rejecting his application vide order dated 22-5-2008 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. While rejecting the said application the Court below has observed as under :- "Perused the papers of investigation and particularly the First Information Report lodged by the informant namely Nagesh Uddhav Thakur.It is alleged that accused no.1 called the deceased Yogesh and took him to the spot of the incident. Thereafter, the other accused persons and accused no.1 assaulted him and cause him serious injuries to which he ultimately succumbed. From these allegations it is clear that accused no.1 had taken initiative in bringing the deceased Yogesh to the spot of the incident to facilitate other accused persons and himself to commit his murder. The role attributed against accused no.1 certainly is more serious than that of accused nos.2 to 5. Had accused no.1 not taken the deceased Yogesh to the spot of the incident he would not have been assaulted by the other accused persons. With this major difference in the role played by accused no.1 on the one hand and that of accused nos. 2 to 5 on the other, in the commission of the above mentioned offence, accused no.1 cannot claim parity with accused nos.2 to 5. There is strong evidence against accused no.1 showing his involvement in the above mentioned offence. Blood stained clothes of accused no.1 have been discovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement. There is direct evidence of eye witnesses against accused no.1. The offence alleged against accused no.1 is certainly serious. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to release him on bail". 3. Having seen the aforesaid observations and the finding recorded so far as the parity is concerned and having notice the role of the applicant no.1 and the allegations made in the post mortem which supports the injuries suffered by the victim, I do not think that any case is made out to take contrary view. 4. Application is rejected. JUDGE