1 Appln 4678-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4678 OF 2010 Karan Murlidhar Chorghe ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Vikas Shivarkar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.Geeta Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 21ST DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for bail by a person, who has been charge sheeted for the murder of one Sandeep alias Anna Bandal. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity, since co-accused Kuleep Bandal and Lala Pavle have been admitted to bail by Order 2 Appln 4678-10 of this Court in Cri.Appln.No.3151 of 2010 dated 14 th November, 2008. The order shows that applicants were instigating other accused to kill the deceased. The role of the present applicant is different. The present applicant has been named by Avinash Ramdas Shilimkar as a person, who asssaulted the victim with a sickle. Therefore, there is no question of grant of bail on parity. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant next submitted that if the applicant had been named by the witness, there was no question of subjecting the applicant to Test Identification Parade wherein the witness had stated that he did not previously know the applicant. This would have to be considered by the learned trial Judge while appreciating evidence. The fact remains that the applicant has been named as an assailant by the witness. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant 3 Appln 4678-10 further submitted that though Avinash Ramdas Shilimkar has stated on 8 th February, 2008 about involvement of the present applicant, the name of the present applicant did not appear in the remand report filed before the Magistrate till 17 th February, 2008. The remand reports are filed by the police justifying seeking of remand of the accused, who are produced before the Court & nothing more. It is not expected at the stage of filing of remand report to disclose the evidence which investigating officer could have collected. Otherwise, the very purpose of maintaining confidentiality about investigation would be lost. Therefore, absence of the name of the applicant in the remand report is irrelevant. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant next submitted that applicant may be allowed to apply for bail on merits before the Sessions Court. Such liberty cannot be 4 Appln 4678-10 granted, after the applicant's claim has been considered on merits. 6. Criminal Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)