IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2089 OF 2009 Arvind Algoo Singh @ Dara & Ors. .. Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr,K.H.Giri for the Applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. (Vacation Judge) DATE : 23RD MAY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Applicants have preferred this application u/s.438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by Nalasopara Police Station in FIR No.I-32/2009 for commission of offences u/s.307, 323, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 120B IPC read with section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, so also section 3(2)(5) of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. 2. I have heard Mr.K.H.Giri, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr.Dedhia, learned APP for the State. Mr.Giri the learned Counsel for the Applicants invited my attention to the order dated April 16, 2009 passed by this Court in Application No.1564 of 2009 and claimed that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the records I am of the view that no case for enlarging the applicants on anticipatory bail is made out. I have carefully gone through the say of the police dated March 25, 2009 wherein specific role is attributed to the applicants. Apart from this, the say also sets out pendency of as many as 5 cases against the first applicant and 4 cases against the second applicant. I have also perused the order dated March 25, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai rejecting the application made by the applicants. In paragraph 3 of the order the learned Sessions Judge considered the detailed say filed by the Investigating Officer which reveals that the plan of murder of Pravin Dhule was hatched at the office of the applicants at Nalasopara (East), Achole Road and these applicants were conspirators alongwith the main accused Sikander Shaikh in the murder of the said Pravin Dhule. The learned Judge also recorded that the allegations against the applicants are of serious nature and the Investigating officer has strong evidence of conspiracy by these applicants and enlarging them on anticipatory bail would mean hampering the investigation. 3. I do not find any ground to take a different view than the learned Sessions Judge. Mr.Giri, the learned Counsel for the applicants strongly relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamaljit Singh V/s.State of Punjab and Another – 2006 Cri.L.J. 4617 for the purpose of contending that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail particularly when on similar allegations two accused Aslam Sorathia and Brijesh Yadav were enlarged on bail by this Court on April 16, 2009. In my view there is no merit in this submission as the role attributed to Aslam Sorathia and Brijesh Yadav and the role assigned to the present applicants is materially different. There is no question of claiming parity. Mr.Giri, learned Counsel for the applicants also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ms.Nancy Jamshed Adajania and etc.V/s.State of Maharashtra – 1993 Cri.L.J. 3465 to contend that in given cases the detention in custody after arrest is wholly unwarranted in which cases anticipatory reliefs are well in order. 4. Considering the material on record I am of the opinion that the judgment of this Court in the case of Ms.Nancy (supra) is of no assistance to the applicants. In the result, the application is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly rejected. (R.G.KETKAR,J.)