{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1502 OF 2010 Baliram s/o Shivram Raodage ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ....... Shri Abhijit Namde, Advocate holding for Shri S.G. Dargad, Advocate for the applicant Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for the respondent ....... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE. J. DATE: 7th May, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. Abhijit Namde, learned counsel holding for Mr. S.G. Dargad, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. P.P. More, learned AA.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.12/2010, registered at Narsi Namdeo Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code since the applicant was arrested thereunder and is under judicial custody {2} presently. 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Nivrutti Bhivaji Shinde on 21.3.2010, alleging that, on 19.3.2010 at about 10.00 a.m. the applicant herein went to the field of the complainant for grazing the cattle and thereupon the complainant asked him why he was grazing cattle in his field and thereupon the applicant asked the complainant what way he was concerned and stated to him that he would finish the complainant once for all and accordingly, rushed towards the complainant along with tin pack of poisonous substance and axe, and made flat the complainant on the ground and pressed his mouth and at that time, the applicant’s wife namely Parvati caught hold of the legs of the complainant and the applicant herein poured the poisonous substance from the said tin pack in the mouth of the complainant forcibly and attempted to commit his murder. It is also alleged that the complainant shouted and thereupon his wife Sumitrabai arrived there and, therefore, the aforesaid persons fled away. Thereafter, the complainant got giddyness and, therefore, he was removed to the hospital of Dr. Nakade by autorickshaw and was admitted there. 4. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the {3} applicant submitted that, although the incident occurred on 19.3.2010, the complaint came to be lodged at belated stage i.e. on 21.3.2010, and the said delay hampers the case of the prosecution. It is also canvassed that the applicant’s wife namely Parvati has been granted bail and, therefore, applicant is also required to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that, the investigation is still under progress and same has not been completed and the statmenets of witnesses have been recorded during the course of investigation and statement of Santosh Shinde apparently connects the applicant to the alleged crime. It is further submitted by learned A.P.P. that recovery of tin pack i.e. poisonous substance of half litre has been made at the instance of the applicant. Accordingly, learned A.P.P. submitted that, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of merits and hence, submitted that the same be rejected. 6. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, apparently, the aspect of delay can be considered at the time of trial after appreciating the evidence and same need not be considered at this stage of bail. Apart from that, as {4} regards the principles of parity, the role attributed to the applicant herein and the role attributed to his wife in the occurrence of incident apparently differs from each other and, therefore, applicant cannot be benefited by principle of parity and cannot be enlarged on bail although his wife is enlarged on bail. 7. It is apparent that the statement of Santosh Shinde which was recorded during the course of investigation connects the applicant with the alleged crime. Moreover, there is discovery of tin pack of pesticide of half litre at the instance of the applicant under the memorandum panchanama and the said aspect is also incriminating against the applicant. Besides that, investigation is under progress and same is incomplete and, therefore, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail at least at this sage. 8. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. 9. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. SHRIHARI P. DAVARE {5} JUDGE fmp/cri1502.10