1. cr appln 3126-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3126 OF 2010 Nitin Digambar Dhotre .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ano. .. Respondents Ms. Pranali Kakade i/b Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar for Applicant Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No. 265 of 2006 of Bhosari Police Station, Pune. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant and other accused went to the shop of Nanduseth to demand money for Annabhau Sathe Jayanti. Nanduseth offered Rs. 1001/-,however, the accused were not satisfied with the amount and they demanded Rs. 5000/-. As Nanduseth was not wiling to give more money, he was assaulted by the applicant and other accused on vital parts with deadly weapons. Nanduseth sustained multiple chop wounds on 1 1. cr appln 3126-10.doc the head as well as injuries on other parts of the body. 4. The applicant had earlier preferred two applications for bail before this Court which came to be rejected by order dated 9th July, 2008 and 8th April,2009. The present application has been preferred for bail on the fresh ground that the co-accused Krishna Waghmare, Santosh Salunke and Jaykant have been granted bail and the role of these accused and the present applicant is similar, hence, bail is sought on the ground of parity. 5. As far as accused Krishna Waghmare is concerned, the ground that his role and the role of the present applicant is similar, hence, bail may be granted on the ground of parity was earlier urged before this Court in Criminal Application No. 442 of 2009. After considering the said ground in depth, the prayer for bail came to be rejected, hence, grant of bail to Krishna Waghmare cannot be said to be a fresh ground which would require reconsideration by this Court. 6. As stated earlier, the applicant is also claiming parity with two other accused i.e Santosh Salunke and Jaykant. In order to claim parity, reliance is placed on the statement of two witnesses i.e Nandkumar Raut and Vishal Lande. On perusal of the statements of these two witnesses, it is seen that they have attributed only general role to all the accused and no specific role has been ascribed by 2 1. cr appln 3126-10.doc these persons to any of the accused persons. However, on perusal of the statement of complainant Dattatraya Lonkar, it is seen that he has ascribed a specific role to some of the accused persons. Complainant Dattatraya has specifically stated that present applicant took out a koyata, Krishna Waghmare took out a sword and other accused persons were armed with weapons. However, thereafter, complainant Dattatraya stated that Nitin Dhotre, Babu Patole and Pramod Shelar assaulted Nandkukar with the weapons in their hands. Thus,it is seen that the complainant has attributed specific role of assault with deadly weapons only to three accused including the present applicant, whereas the complainant has not attributed any role of assault to co-accused Krishna Waghmare, Jaykant or Santosh Salunkhe. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that any case of parity is made out, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 7. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the order whereby Santosh Salunkhe came to be granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. On reading the said order, it is observed that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail on the ground that "The applicant was shown present on the spot of occurrence holding sickle". Hence, on this ground the learned Sessions Judge 3 1. cr appln 3126-10.doc granted bail to accused Santosh Salunkhe. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge relied upon the statements of two eye witnesses i.e Nandkumar Raut and Vishal Lande. However, as far as the present applicant is concerned, it is not just these two eye witnesses who have implicated him but the complainant Dattatraya has also implicated the present applicant and he has attributed specific role of assault on Nandkumar with chopper. Hence, this order cannot be relied upon to claim parity. 8. Thereafter, learned advocate for the applicant stated that co-accused Prakash Chavan has preferred C.R.A. No. 246 of 2010 wherein he has prayed for discharge. She stated in the said C.R.A. this Court granted stay to the trial. She has placed reliance on the order dated 29th April, 2010 in the said case wherein it is observed that the Sessions Court shall not start the trial. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 2007 and in view of the fact that the trial has been stayed, the applicant, if bail is not granted, will continue to languish in jail, hence, on this ground of being in custody for a long period of time, prayer for bail may be granted. 9. As far as this statement is concerned, on verifying the office records, it is found that C.R.A. No. 246 of 2010 was disposed of on 06.07.2010. Thus, this ground also 4 1. cr appln 3126-10.doc cannot be considered. As far as the ground that the applicant has been in custody since 2007 is concerned, it is noticed that the incident is of the month July 2006 and the applicant was absconding and he came to be arrested only in the year 2007. Thus, it is seen that the applicant has been absconding for more than six months. Looking to this fact and the role played by the applicant and the nature of injury sustained by Nandkukar, I am not inclined to grant bail. 10.Application is rejected. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5 1. cr appln 3126-10.doc 6