1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5351 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. U.R. Agandsurve for the applicant. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 20TH JANUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. 60/2009 registered at Kurduwadi Police Station, Solapur (now Sessions Case No.140 of 2009) for an alleged offence punishable under sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 506 of the I.P.C. 2 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 27th February 2009 in the afternoon, Sapna (sister of the deceased Sachin) was working in the field of one Shankar Patil, when one of the co-accused, namely Goyik Bhosale, started teasing and misbehaving with her. At about 3.00 p.m., Sachin went to ask Goyik why he was misbehaving with his sister. At that time, the applicant, his another son Sadken and wife came there and started abusing the deceased Sachin. Goyik assaulted Sachin with an axe (farshi kurhad). Sachin suffered injuries on the left side of the head and succumbed to the injuries. 4. The applicant and his wife was arrested. However, Goyik and other co-accused are absconding. Application for bail by the applicant was rejected while the applicant’s wife has been released on bail. The applicant claims bail inter alia on the ground of parity. 3 5. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s wife has been released on bail. Role of the applicant and his wife are no different and therefore the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 6. In my view, the ground of party is not applicable. Perusal of the order of the Sessions Court shows that the applicant’s wife has been granted bail on the ground that she is a woman. First proviso to sub-section (1) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) empowers the court to release a person on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen or is woman or sick or infirm. The Code thus contemplates a little leniency in cases of female. The applicant therefore cannot claim parity though his wife is released on bail because the learned Sessions Judge appears to have granted her the benefit of proviso to sub- section (1) of section 437 of the Code. 4 7. So far as the applicant is concerned, Sapna (sister of the deceased) and Swapnil are eye witnesses. They have specifically named the applicant in the F.I.R. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the fatal blow by an axe was given by Goyik and not by the applicant and therefore he can be granted bail. The allegation is of common intention and the applicant has also been charged with section 34 of the I.P.C. Since all the accused were acting in furtherance of a common intention, the applicant, at this stage, is not entitled to claim bail on the ground that the fatal blow was inflicted by Goyik. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the fact that there are eye witnesses to the crime who have specifically named the applicant in the F.I.R., the applicant 5 cannot be granted bail. The application is accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)