1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3058 OF 2010 Dangal Sitaram Patil ... applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents ---- Shri A.N.Kakade, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondent. Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 27th August, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Shri A.N.Kakade, learned Advocate for the applicant, as well as Shri S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. 2. This is an application for bail preferred by the applicant herein, in connection with CR No.19 of 2010 registered with Yawal Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, since the applicant was reported to have been arrested on 28.2.2010 therein and is in judicial custody, presently. 2 3. It is the matter of record that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Application No.1218 of 2010 before this Court for his enlargement on bail. However, the said application was rejected by this Court by order dated 13th April 2010, since the investigation was in progress and charge-sheet was to be filed and also for the reasons stated in the said order. It appears that thereafter, the charge-sheet came to be filed after completion of the investigation and the applicant herein preferred Criminal Application No.393 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. However, the said application also came to be rejected by order dated 14.5.2010. 4. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the fact that the co-accused Balu Gokul Patil had preferred Criminal Application No.2494/2010 before this court after filing the chargesheet, praying to enlarge him on bail and the said application was allowed by this Court on 23.7.2010. (Coram : Hon'ble Justice Shri A.V.Potdar). Hence, learned counsel for the applicant herein urged that since the co-accused Balu Gokul Patil has been enlarged on bail, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity, contending that, in 3 fact, the allegation as against co-accused are of serious nature as compared to the allegations made against the applicant herein. In the said context, learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the allegations against co-accused Balu Gokul Patil are that he was armed with stick, whereas the allegation against present applicant is that he assaulted the victim by fist blows on his mouth. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspects, and also considering the position that the present case is based upon circumstantial evidence and further considering the fact that the co-accused Balu Gokul Patil has been released on bail by this court by order dated 23.7.2010 referred to above, the applicant herein is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity, since the the case of the co-accused and the case of the present applicant are based on almost similar footings, and as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, the allegations against the co-accused Balu are, in fact, comparatively of more serious nature than the allegations against the applicant herein. Moreover, judicial discipline and propriety also requires that the applicant be released on bail since co-accused Balu is enlarged on bail by this court, as aforesaid. 4 6. However, stringent conditions are required to be imposed upon the applicant, while enlarging him on bail to ensure that he shall not influence upon the witnesses and tamper with evidence directly or indirectly, and also to ensure his presence for the trial. 6. In the result, present application is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/= and on executing P.R.Bond in the like amount, on following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not enter into Khanderao Nagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon till disposal of the trial. (ii) The applicant shall attend before the concerned Police Station once in quarter till disposal of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall not influence the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence, directly or indirectly. 7. Application stands disposed of, accordingly. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) pnd/criap3058.10