1 CR.APL NO.238/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.238 OF 2011 Pintu @ Sachin Bhaurao Jadhav, Age 22 years, Occ. Agri., r/o Gadipura, Hingoli, Taluka and District Hingoli. ...APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.H.V.Nimbalkar, Adv., h/f Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:15/2/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. The applicant in custody from 27.12.2008, seeks release on bail. Complainant Ganesh Kundlikrao Kute informed Police that on 20.12.2008, while complainant with his brother Rajesh ( deceased), Mahesh Kundlikrao Banger and Makhan Sharma were proceeding from Ramlila Maidan, present accused/applicant, with his six associates, barged at the scene. The accused/applicant, his associate Pappu Chavan 2 CR.APL NO.238/2011 were holding knife, Vijay Ingale, Ram Kadam were holding swords. All of a sudden, these suspects inflicted blows at the abdomen, at the backside, thigh with the knife and sword. Manoj and two others had controlled said Rajesh. Rajesh was admitted to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Post mortem was carried. FIR, as stated above, is lodged and, after investigation, chargesheet is filed. 2. Learned Counsel representing the accused/applicant submits that 9 accused so far have been granted bail. Learned Counsel submits that the principles of parity should be applied as the two accused persons, who were holding sword and battered the deceased, are enlarged on bail. No case for attracting infraction of Section 302 of IPC is made out. Provisions of M.C.O.C. Act would not be applicable. The accused/applicant is active members of Chava Sanghathana and has been implicated on a political rivalry. The deceased too was notorious, had association with another political party as in charge of its city unit. 3. Learned A.P.P., as against above submissions, informs, this is not the only case against the accused/applicant, there are eight cases and he has also been directed to be externed from the vicinity. There is recovery 3 CR.APL NO.238/2011 at the instance of accused/applicant. After rejection of the bail application dt.14.10.2009, present application is now moved, seeking bail without informing any progress in the trial. 4. The broad submissions of application of principles of parity will not be available with the same scale, yardstick and parameters. Role attributed to two other accused, with sword, if seen in the context of post mortem notes, is illustrative that owing to such assault by swords, deceased had suffered injuries. It was not a deep rooted injury to the thighs of the deceased. The injury by knife at the abdominal region had protruded spleen. It was incise in nature, could be fatal. The accused/applicant, as allegedly assaulted the victim on backside, which corresponds to the grievous injuries suffered by the victim, splashing and spilling in bleeding injury. 5. The contention that the persons who were holding swords having been released on bail and, therefore, this accused to be released on bail, in the set of above set of facts, would not be available. 6. The contention that provisions of Section 302 of IPC would not be applicable is again misplaced as it was a organized unlawful 4 CR.APL NO.238/2011 assembly of more than five persons in which the deceased was done to death. Every member of such assembly is bound to answer the charges. The diabolic brutality does not call for principles of parity. 7. There is recovery of knife at the instance and behest of the accused, which corresponds to the events. 8. It may be, released accused faced four cases, it need not be used and coined to get release on bail as, present accused/applicant is facing eight cases; two of which are for offenses under Sections 323, 324, while one is for offense under Section 395 of IPC. It is easy to harp that the cases are politically motivated, however, loss of life of deceased Rajesh also need not be taken lightly, even if he was externee in past. However, it does not provide license to the accused/applicant to eliminate the deceased, in a concert and conspiracy. Application lacks merit, rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/238-11crapl