{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4087 OF 2009 Vishnu s/o Laxman (Raman) Dhoble APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.B.S.Kudale, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 7 th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.77/2009 registered with Hatta Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. {2} 3. Learned counsel for applicant urged to release the applicant on anticipatory bail mainly on three grounds; firstly, that there are two persons of the same name, however middle name is different and wrong statement was made before this Court, which has resulted into withdrawal or dismissal of his application. Secondly, it is urged that the other accused are released on anticipatory bail and hence the present applicant be also released on bail on parity. Lastly, it is contended that considering role alleged against the applicant that he has allegedly gave blows of kicks and fists, the offence will be covered u/s 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code and hence he be released on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that name of the applicant is disclosed in the compliant and the complainant has clearly stated his participation in the alleged offence. It is urged that even the statements of the witnesses disclose participation of the applicant. 5. While considering the ground of parity as well as order passed in respect of other accused persons, it has to bear in mind that application u/s 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and application u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code are totally different. While granting application u/s 439, role played by the individual requires to be considered, however, while considering application u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court has to consider as to whether there is any false implication of the {3} applicant or not. On perusal of papers of investigation, the role played by the applicant in the said offence is prima facie, visible. No doubt, that the role played by the applicant may not attract section 307 of the IPC, however, that does not mean that there is no case at all against the applicant and he is falsely implicated. In the premise, as there is prima facie case against the applicant, no case is made out to release him on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln4087-09