1 Cri.A. 2738/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2738 OF 2010 Amit @ Pintya Gopal Ghule .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharahtra .. Respondent Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A.D. Kamkhedkar for the applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. For the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Previous bail application (Criminal Application No.4777 of 2009) filed by the applicant was rejected by me by an order dated 20 January 2010. This being the second bail application has been placed before me by reason of an order dated 15 June 2010 passed by my colleague A.R. Joshi, J. and by reason of the standing orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to place the second bail application before the same Bench. 2. The applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. 33 of 2009 registered at Alandi Devachi Police Station, District Pune, for an alleged offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. Admittedly, there is no 2 Cri.A. 2738/10 eye witness to the actual crime. However, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and the statement of owner of the hotel and two witnesses who had stated about the quarrel between the deceased on the one hand and the applicant and the co-accused on the other hand, the previous bail application was rejected on 20 January 2010. 3. Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, submitted that thereafter by an order dated 27 April 2010 passed in Criminal Application No.1518 of 2010, another Bench of this Court has granted bail to the co-accused Rajesh Jadhav. He submitted that the case of the applicant is no different than the case of Rajesh Jadhav who has been granted bail. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 4. Learned A.G.P. was unable to point out any circumstances distinguishing the case of the present applicant from that of Rajesh Jadhav. It is true that the chemical analyser’s report, which has been obtained after the previous order, shows the presence of human blood on the clothes recovered from the applicant. However, the same is the case in respect of the co-accused Rajesh Jadhav who has been granted bail. That is not a distinguishing feature. 3 Cri.A. 2738/10 5. Today, in this application an affidavit sworn on 12 August 2010 has been filed by Mr. Ratansingh Bhagwansingh Rajput, Assistant Police Inspector attached to Alandi Devachi Police Station. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, he has stated that on receipt of the telephone call from the complainant Ajay Kad, a co-employee of the deceased, he had visited the hospital and asked the deceased, who was then alive, about the assault. He has further stated that the deceased faintly uttered the names of Anil and Vishal. The name of the applicant is Amit @ Pintya and he is not one of the two named by the deceased. This fact was also not brought on record when the previous bail application was decided. Taking into consideration the subsequent affidavit dated 12 August 23010 filed by the Investigating Officer Mr. Ratansingh Bhagwansingh Rajput, Assistant Inspector of Police as also the fact that the co-accused, against whom the allegations are similar, has been granted bail by this Court by an order dated 27 April 2010, the present applicant also deserves to be granted bail. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER The applicant be released on bail on his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall report to the concerned police station once a month and shall within 48 hours of his release inform in writing to the concerned police station his present address 4 Cri.A. 2738/10 as well as his mobile telephone number. The applicant shall also inform about any change in the residence or mobile telephone number to the concerned police station within 48 hours of the change. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)