1appa-954-10 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 954/2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1129 /2007 Rohit Ramdas Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr Umesh R.Mankapure, for the Applicant/Appellant. Mr H.J. Dedhia, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. CORAM:- D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE :- 14th October, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr Mankapure, learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant and Mr Dedhia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. 2. The Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present application for bail is the second application moved by the applicant. The earlier application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 2appa-954-10 20.11.2008 on the ground that the blood found on the clothes of the present applicant i.e. pant and shirt, was the human blood of “B” group which was the blood group of the deceased. The Counsel for the applicant further submitted that this observation made by this Court in the said order is not based on the report of the Chemical Analyser. It is further submitted that blood group of the deceased could not be detected and, therefore, the Chemical Analyser’s report is totally silent in this regard. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that while rejecting the earlier bail application, the sole ground, which was considered by this Court, was the detection of human blood of the “B” group on the clothes of the applicant which, in fact, is not the true and correct position. 3. The counsel for the applicant further contended that in the instant case the complainant (PW 1 Dhananjay) did not mention the name of the applicant in the first information report and, for the first time, mentioned the name of the applicant in the supplementary statement which was recorded by the police after two days. It is further contended that PW 4 Firoj was not eye-witness to the incident and his statement was also recorded two days after the incident. The prosecution has not conducted any identification parade. It is 3appa-954-10 contended that the case of original accused No.5 (Amit Bhosale) stood on the same footing, who was granted bail by this Court in the similar circumstance, although the allegation against the said accused is that he assaulted the deceased with knife, whereas the applicant, at the relevant time, caught hold of the hands of the deceased. It is contended that the original accused No.5 was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.8.2008 and, therefore, the applicant is also claiming bail on the basis of the parity. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the clothes of the present applicant i.e. pant and shirt, though were stained with the human blood, however, group could not be detected and, therefore, the Chemical Analyser’s report is silent in this regard and the observations made by this Court in the earlier order dated 20.11.2008 passed by this Court in this regard were not based on true and correct position so far as grouping of human blood is concerned. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also not disputed that original accused No.5 (Amit Bhosale), though similarly circumstanced, was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.8.2008. In fact, the allegations against accused No. 5 were that he assaulted the deceased with the knife. Whereas the case against the present applicant is that at 4appa-954-10 the relevant time, he caught hold the deceased. In the backdrop of these undisputed facts, we are of the view that the applicant has made out a case on the ground of parity with that of original accused No.5. 5. In the above circumstances, the applicant be released on bail subject to furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like manner. Application is disposed of accordingly. (D.D.SINHA, J) (A. P. BHANGALE, J)