2010appln1661.10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1661/2010 (Mohd. Atik Mohd Rafiq vs. State of Maharashtra) ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R. M. Daga Adv for applicant. Mr. S. M. Bhagde, A.P.P. for respondent-State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 20 th October, 2010. Heard Shri Daga learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP Shri Bhagde for respondent/State. 2] Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 88/2009 registered by Nagpuri Gate Police Station Amravati as per report dated 30.07.2009. The applicant along with other accused persons assaulted one Shafiq. The main assailant was one Sajid Mansuri who was carrying sword in his hand and other accused persons were carrying bat, stumps and sticks. Applicant was carrying bat. 3] Learned counsel Shri Daga invited my attention to the report and submitted that in report itself only presence of the applicant is mentioned and general statement is made that accused persons were carrying bat, stumps and sticks. 4] Learned counsel Shri Daga further submitted that in the material so far collected by the investigating 2010appln1661.10.odt agency in the supplementary statement of Shamim it is stated that applicant was carrying bat and assaulted the victim with bat. Shri Daga further submitted that in the supplementary statement as well in the report it is mentioned that one Amin mansuri was also carrying the bat and assaulted the victim with the bat. Shri Daga learned counsel invited my attention to the order passed by this Court on 8th March 2010 in Criminal Application 326 of 2010 and submitted that in the similar state of circumstances i.e. the use of bat was alleged against applicant Mohd. Amin and while considering material collected by the Investigating Agency this Court observed; considering that main role in the crime was not attributed to the present applicant as active participant in the same, at the most, it may be stated that subsequently one Amin was seen armed with cricket bat and assaulting the person who had fallen down in motionless condition. Considering the material collected in the course of investigation, I think benefit of conditional bail may be granted in favour of the applicant. 5] Shri Daga learned counsel submits that similar state of circumstance is alleged against the applicant and in view of the order passed by this Court of releasing applicant the applicant in this application is seeking bail on the ground of parity. 6] I have gone through the record produced by the learned APP. Perusal of record shows that similar state of circumstances are alleged against the applicant 2010appln1661.10.odt and I therefore find no reason to take any different view from the view taken by this Court in deciding the application of Mohd. Amin. In the result the application is allowed. Applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 88 of 2009 upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one or two surety in the equal amount, provided that he shall attend the trial on each date of hearing. He shall inform his fixed/permanent address with phone/mobile number to the Investigating Officer as well as the Presiding Officer of the trial Court. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Application is disposed of. JUDGE svk