1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1763 OF 2010 Haribhau S/o.Laxman Sangle, Age-33 years, Occu-Agriculturist, Age-Vazor (Kh.) Tq.Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 09/06/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.98/2009 registered in Sengaon Police Station, in which the present applicant came to be arrested on 03/01/2010, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Sengaon on 03/03/2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation. 2 3. Post mortem notes shows that the cause of death of deceased is due to head injury. Coloumn no.17 of the post mortem notes specifically denotes that the injury is found on the backside of skull of the deceased while injuries noted in coloumn no.19(i) indicate that there is multiple fracture found on the skull of the deceased, which indicates that the death of deceased is a homicidal death due to head injury by multiple fracture over the skull of deceased. 4. Once it is noticed that the death is homicidal and due to head injury, now it is necessary to consider what the papers of investigation discloses and whether the act/role played by the applicant connects him with the crime. 5. The statement of the complainant discloses that during the incident which took place at 9.30 a.m. on 30/12/2009 about the rent to be charged between father of the complainant and the applicant and others. During that quarrel, blow was given by the present applicant on the head of the father of complainant with the handle of spade, which statement is supported by other witnesses, whose statements were recorded during the investigation. Thus the fact is clear that the role played by the applicant is resulted in death of deceased. 6. It is urged across the bar that the charge sheet was filed against the applicant and 5-6 other persons, who were earlier released on bail. On the ground of parity, this applicant is also 3 entitled for bail. This statement is opposed by the learned APP. 7. For the reasons stated in the earlier part of this order, it can be inferred that there is direct nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased which resulted in his death and the blow given by this applicant. Considering the relation between the parties, identity can not be termed as mistaken identity and if it is so, the act of applicant can not be at par with those who were earlier released on bail. In the premise, applications sans any merit, hence rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.cri.appl.1763-10