IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 169 of 2010 Ganesh and Keshav v. State of Maharashtra ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr , S.M. Matey, Adv for applicants Mr S.B. Ahirkar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 26th February 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 159/2009 registered with Police Station, Kalamna, District Nagpur for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to learned counsel for applicants, co-accused Shrawan has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 4th January 2010 in Criminal Application No. 3594/09 on the ground that no active role was attributed to him in the alleged incident of murder and that witness concerned was in an inebriated condition. However, in respect of the present applicants, it appears that they had moved 5th Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur with plea for bail and it was rejected mainly on the grund that clothes of these applicants were discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which were found blood-stained. The material also indicates that the eye witness had seen the accused Keshav hitting the victim with stone on his head while accused Ganesh was also present and instigated the alleged murder. The post-mortem notes indicate that deceased died due to multiple injuries which were 28 in number. For all these reasons, plea for bail was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge. The blood-stained black stone was also seized from spot of incident which is the alleged weapon of offence. Applicants cannot be allowed to claim parity with the co- accused who has been released on bail. 3. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to take different view of the matter. Application is rejected. Trial Court is expected to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months. Judge. Hsj