KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 86 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 800 OF 2008 Jagan @ Jagannath Rama Thombare ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent (At the instance of Sinnar Police Station, Sinnar, Dist, Nashik) Mr. S.P. Kadam and Mr. Sagar Kasar for the applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR , JJ. DATE: MARCH 31, 2011. P.C. This is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant- accused on the ground that in view of subsequent events, the applicant is required to be released on bail. 2. Initially when the applicant preferred bail application being Criminal Application No. 1227 of 2009, we rejected the same by our order dated 24th February, 2010, as the advocate appearing for the applicant had not pressed his case on the basis of parity. It is pointed out that subsequently accused Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 are released on bail by another Division Bench of this Court by an order passed on 25th June, 2010 in Criminal Application No. 651 of 2010. KPP -2- 3. The case of the prosecution is that deceased was the husband of one Usha and since their relationship was strained and when deceased went to his in-laws house, his wife Usha administered him poison which resulted into his death. It is also the case of the prosecution that the present applicant and other accused were also present at the place where the incident took place. In our order dated 24th February, 2010, we had fixed the appeal for final hearing on 30th March, 2010. However, the court is informed that the concerned court is not in a position to take up this matter and by an order dated 3rd February, 2011, the Court observed as under in paragraphs 2 and 3. “2. Presently, appeals pertaining to the year 2002 onwards are included in the final hearing board. The appeal filed by the applicant pertains to the year 2008. It cannot get precedence over the other pending criminal appeals of the same type, merely because his prayer for bail has been rejected, which is the situation in every other appeal falling under the same category. 3. Since the counsel for the applicant submits that he would like to pursue his application on merits and in view of the order dated 24.2.2010 passed by another Bench, we deem it appropriate to direct the office to place the matter before the same Bench which decided the earlier bail application filed by the applicant being Criminal Application No. 1227 of 2009. Liberty to apply.” 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the role attributed to accused Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 and the role of the applicant is absolutely KPP -3- identical. It is pointed out that accused No. 3 – Prakash Jagannath Thombare – against whom deceased had made allegation in his dying declaration that he gave him fist blows on his face and accused Usha administered poison. After the passing of our order dated 24th February, 2010, another Division Bench has already released accused Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor frankly admits that the role attributed to accused No. 3 is in fact graver than the role attributed to the present applicant. 5. In our view, on the basis of parity, the applicant is also required to be released on bail. We once again reiterate that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that the role attributed to other accused who were released on bail and the present applicant is identical except in the case of accused No.3, who is also released on bail against whom serious allegations are made by the deceased. In view of the above, we allow this application and direct the release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant shall report to the concerned police station once in two weeks during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 2008. Application is accordingly disposed of. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.