IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 3529 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO. 3529 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO. 3529 OF 2008 Shri Javed Ibrahim Sayyad, .. Applicant. Vs State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent Mr A.B.Vagyani, for the applicant. Mr J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 12/11/2008 DATE : 12/11/2008 DATE : 12/11/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Vagyani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Yagnik, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. 83 of 2008 of Laxmipuri police station, Kolhapur. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and ten others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302,148,149 of IPC and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. At the outset, Mr Vagyani,learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant is entitled for bail on parity with Mahesh Namdeo Bhosale, the co-accused, who has been released on bail by this court vide order dated 23.7.2008 in Criminal Application No.2048 of 2008. He submitted that there is absolutely no difference between the role assigned and allegedly played by Mahesh Bhosale and the present applicant. 4. The applicant and the ten others have allegedly committed murder of Anil Bhaskar. The complainant is not an eye-witness. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of the statement of an eye-witness Raju Jadhav. The incident had occurred on 7.10.2007 and the statement of Raju Jadhav was recorded on 9.10.2007. He is a brother-in-law of the deceased. According to this witness, five accused, namely Prakash Kamble, Yogesh Patil, Shivaji Patil, Jayhind Indrekar and Ravi Shinde, whom he knew, assaulted Anil Bhaskar with sword and knife, which they were armed with at the relevant time. From his statement, it is clear that in the initial part of the statement he did not name the applicant, however, at the end of the statement,he has stated that he identified the accused persons, who were shown to him in the police lock-up and thereafter he named the applicant. In view thereof, the fact remains that if the applicant was known to the witness Raju Jadhav, why did he not name him in the earlier part of the statement and if the applicant was unknown to him why test identification parade was not conducted. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant on parity. This Court, on identical facts, has released Mahesh Bhosale on bail. Learned APP could not point out any difference between the case of the present applicant and the case against Mahesh Bhosale. In the circumstances, I pass the following order. . The applicant to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station every alternate Saturday between 10 and 11 am till conclusion of the trial. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)