1 Cri.Appln.No.128/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.128/2011 Dnyaneshwar s/o Tulshiram Kakade - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.NK Kakade, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1st February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard extensively. 2) Muktabai, 19 years, married to applicant – Dnyaneshwar on 13th December, 2009, was unaware that she would breath her last within four months of her marriage. The jittered father could not console his feelings, logic failed for him, as his beloved daughter was seen in a pool of blood, the reasons, assigned by the in-laws and also by the accused/husband, were unconceivable. An enormity was flickering in spill of blood at the floor in the room. 3) Statement of Ananta depicts entire 2 Cri.Appln.No.128/2011 picture that has taken place immediate prior to Muktabai breathed her last, as she was severely assaulted. She was called by her husband, when she was washing apparels with Vandana, another lady. Since Muktabai was reluctant, second call was allegedly given by applicant/accused, upon which Muktabai went and after few minutes she suffered the brunt and lost her life. The post mortem notes expose, it was not a death by fall, but death was by an attack by a heavy instrument. Recovery of a metal mortar (Khalbatta) was made, CA report awaited. 4) Learned Counsel repeatedly canvassed, since other family members of the accused/applicant are released on bail, principle of parity flow in favour of the applicant. For such purpose, he has placed reliance to the Judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Nanha s/o Nabhan Kha Vs. State of U.P. - 1993 Cri.L.J. 938. The Lordships of the Division Bench considered the dictionary meaning of the term “parity”, which means – the state or condition being equal or on a level; equality; equality of rank or status. In paragraph 24, the Lordships have observed as under, - “24. My answer to the points referred to us is that parity cannot be the 3 Cri.Appln.No.128/2011 sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications when the bail applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier rejected are allowed and co- accused is released on bail. Even then the court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations or otherwise and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. If on examination of a given case, it transpires that the case of the applicant before the court is identically similar to the accused on facts and circumstances who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should be also released on bail.” 5) In this case, the principles of parity, will not be so easily and readily to be coined and made available for a simple reason, the role attributed to the husband/applicant is on altogether different situation, more surfacing from statement of several witnesses. Placing reliance to the sole testimony of maternal uncle or of father of the deceased by itself will not accelerate the principles of parity. The primary evidence in unequivocal tone and tune illustrate differentiation in the role played in eliminating Muktabai. Consequently, release of applicant – 4 Cri.Appln.No.128/2011 Dnyaneshwar on the ground of parity or to be in custody since April 2010, has little consequence. The application lacks merit, rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/