1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.453 OF 2010. KISHOR S/O SUDHAKAR PANDE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PSO P.S. PUSAD. ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. K. S.Joshi, APP for respondent State. Shria.n. Narnaware, Advocate for intervener. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. DATE : 29th MARCH, 2010. 1. This is an application for grant of bail. The applicant has been named in the charge-sheet filed along with the accused Manoj under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused Manoj is already released on bail by this Court in Criminal Application No.248 of 2010 by order dated 5-3-2001. 3. The applicant claims bail on two grounds: (i) parity; 2 (ii) that the material on record does not adequately identify the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence. 4. Perused the documents which are part of charge- sheet. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. B. Gaikwad for the applicant and learned APP Mrs. K. S. Joshi for respondent State. 5. It is seen that the submission of parity is based on the grounds which can be described in a nutshell as follows:- (a) Ambiguity as to involvement of the present applicant Kishor is the same as much as ambiguity in relation to the accused no.1 Manoj. (b) In so far as the claim of bail on parity is concerned, the applicant accused has not been indicated as involved. The name of the applicant accused stand disclosed in the statement of second eye witness - Durga the mother of deceased Manoj. 6. Perusal of first information report reveals that the complainant has narrated the fact of acquaintance 3 with the accused. Witness Durga has in a specific terms given the nick name, call names of the accused persons. 7. Perusal of the order passed by this Court on 5- 3-2010 releasing accused Manoj on bail reveals expression that 'the accused may be entitled to the benefit of doubt', and on that ground, this Court has released the applicant Manoj on bail in Criminal Application No.248 of 2010. 8. On perusal of record, this Court is of considered view that while this Court granting bail to accused Manoj by this Court was due to the possibility of entertaining of a doubt. To this Court it is very clear from the statement of Durga as well as the supplementary statement of the informant that the accused have been sufficiently involved. 9. The accused may succeed in trial, due to any ambiguity in the evidence of the prosecution or the doubt that may be created as a result of cross examination, and may earn the benefit of creating a situation arising out of a doubt in the mind of the Court. However, at this stage, applicant's case does not impress the Court for 4 grant of bail in favour of the present applicant for alleged lack of identity. 10. This Court is of considered view that, prima facie, involvement of the applicant is duly made out and the applicant does not have a right of bail. 11. Application is rejected. Judge //mule//