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.4194 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.4194 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.4194 OF 2008 Prakash Kuber Kamble, .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra, Respondent. Mr. A.P.Mundargi, senior counsel, with Mr Shounak L.Mehta, for the applicant. Ms P.P.Shende, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 03/12/2008 DATE : 03/12/2008 DATE : 03/12/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Ms.Shinde, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicant has prayed for bail in C.R.No.83 of 2007 of Laxmipuri Police Station, Dist-Kolhapur. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and ten others for having allegedly committed an offence under sections 302,147, 148 and 149 read with 34 of IPC and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. The prosecution case is that all the accused, on 7.10.2007 at 9.30 pm, assaulted the deceased Anil Bhaskar with deadly weapons in their hands and committed his murder. The incident was witnessed by one Raju Jadhav. He is a brother-in-law of the deceased. According to this witness, all the accused including the present applicant, whom he knew and whom he has named in his statement, assaulted Anil Bhaskar with sharp edged weapons. Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited my attention to the orders passed by this court in Application nos.3527/08, 3528/08 and 3529/08 and submitted that the present applicant is also entitled for bail on parity. I am unable to concede the submission advanced by Mr Mundargi. None of these applicants in those criminal applications were named by the sole eye-witness Raju Jadhav in the initial part of his statement and he has named them only at the end of the statement stating that he identified those accused when they were shown to him in the police lock-up. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned he has been named by Raju Jadhav and he has also attributed overt act to him. Apart from that, it is pertinent to note that the co-accused Yogesh Patil has also lodged a complaint bearing C.R.No.84 of 2007 about the very same incident stating that he and two others sustained injuries in the said incident at the hands of the deceased Anil Bhaskar. In the FIR (CR No.84/07) Yogesh Patil has clearly stated that the present applicant was one of the assailants, who assaulted the deceased. In my opinion, there is enough material on record to connect the applicant with the alleged incident of murder. This is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. . 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.)