1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.515 of 2010 [Abdul Sattar son of Sk. Usman 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. R.M. Daga, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 20th April, 2010. 1. Applicant is named as accused No.10 in Crime No. 88/2009 registered with Nagpuri Gate Police Station, Amravati, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 506-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 and 5 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The applicant claims bail on following grounds:- [a] Parity in view that four accused, namely Accused Nos.4, 7, 14 and 15 have already been released on bail either by the Sessions Court or by this Court. [b] The parity is claimed in view that whatever is ascribed to accused who are released on 2 bail is assault on head of the deceased, while a similar role is attributed to present applicant by two eye-witnesses relied upon by the prosecution. [c] Apart from complainant, there is no other witness who names the applicant. [d] Naseem Bano is also seen to have named the applicant, however, she herself is shown as one amongst the accused persons in the First Information Report and, therefore, her version could not be, at this stage, used to oppose the bail application filed by the present applicant. [e] Amongst 19 eye-witnesses, no other witness named the applicant. 3. Heard learned Adv. Mr. R.M. Daga for the applicant at length, learned APP Mr. V.A. Thakre and learned Adv. Ms. Sandhya Maniyar who appears to assist the prosecution. 4. Perused the documents annexed to charge-sheet and Post-mortem Report. 3 5. The cause of death of Mohammed Shafi, as given in the Post-mortem Report, is “Shock due to head injury with fractured skull with intra cranial haemorrhage with injury to vital centre of brain.” 6. It is seen that it was a case of assault in a state of turmoil in the midnight. 7. Though in the statement of the complainant, on the basis of which First Information Report is registered, Naseem wife of deceased Shafi is also described amongst 8-10 persons who were assaulting the deceased, in the supplementary statement, complainant has stated that the weapon - “Katta” was held in the hand by the brother of Rashid. 8. It is seen that it has come in the statement of Nasrin that a “Sattur” was in the hand of present applicant. 9. It is seen from statements of various witnesses that those, who were not in a position to identify one and all accused, have narrated that the weapon “Sattur” and sticks were in the hands of the accused persons. 10. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by deceased, accompanied by version of Nasrin that the blow on the head was given by present applicant, the applicant's case stands on a totally different foundation as compared to other accused who are released on bail. 4 11. Whatever reservation and and defences which the accused-applicant has against ultimate trustworthiness of the witnesses as regards assault by “Sattur” ascribed to present applicant, at this stage, whatever material is available on record can be considered to be adequate to indicate that present applicant may be involved in commission of the offence, for which a charge-sheet is filed against him. 12. In view that role ascribed to present applicant is distinguishable from the role attributed to other accused, who have been released on bail, the applicant does not stand eligible to the principle of parity and, therefore, is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 13. Considering the totality of the circumstances, prima facie, there is a case against the applicant distinguishable from other accused released on bail. 14. In the result, application is rejected. Judge |Hedau| 5