1appln-2190-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2190 of 2010 Mr Mohjam Abdulla Navsekar .. .. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra .. .. .. Respondent. Mr Madhukar Dalvi, for the Applicant. Mrs A. S. Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 6th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant arrested in connection with C.R. No.370/2009 registered by Chembur Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504 of I.P.C. and also the offences of rioting armed with deadly weapons. 2. Out of six accused, four persons are in custody including the present applicant. One accused is absconding and one accused 2appln-2190-10 by name Irfan is already released on bail by an order dated 24.4.2010 (Coram : Shri R.S.Mohite,J). 3. There are three eye-witnesses to the said incident who are taking the name of the present applicant as one of the assailants and assaulting the deceased, suspected thief, by means of fist and kicks and also assaulting on the private parts of the deceased. It is also in the statement of said eye-witnesses that they tried to stop the present applicant from continuing assault, however, he did not give any heed. This is the main role assigned to the present applicant. 4. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant prays for grant of bail on the parity, as another co-accused by name Irfan is released by the another Bench, as mentioned above. After going through the statements of the three witnesses who take the name of the present applicant it appears that out of them only one witness mentioning the name of Irfan, that is also the sweeping statement, i.e. various persons gathered on the spot had noticed that main accused and also said Irfan were assaulting the deceased. Other two witnesses, who are taking the name of the present applicant, had not mentioned anything regarding the involvement of Irfan. Probably this is the main reason as to the parity cannot be considered so far as the present applicant is concerned, against whom there are statements 3appln-2190-10 of three witnesses. 5. During the arguments, learned A.P.P.for the State submitted that the investigation is already over, charge-sheet is filed and charge is also framed by 3.8.2010 and under these circumstances, it would not be prudent to release the present applicant against whom there are three eye-witnesses. 6. Considering rival submissions, it would not be in the fitness of situation to release the accused-applicant when the trial of the matter can be immediately taken up as charge-sheet is already filed and offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life as it is the offence of 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C.and also the offences as to rioting. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Bail application is rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J) LRS-PA