1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 112 of 2011 Rajendra @ Chhotu Ramawtar Yadav ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Sevagram, Dist. Wardha Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A. S. Manohar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. J. Khan, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 15 th April , 2011 . Heard. By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 66/2010 registered with Police Station, Sevagram, Dist. Wardha for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 341 of Indian Penal Code. At the outset, Mr. Manohar, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that this is second attempt of the applicant seeking bail. The earlier application filed by the applicant vide Criminal Application No. 1466/2010 was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 05/10/2010. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that a report dated 20/3/2010 was lodged at Sevagram Police Station through complainant - Dr. Vishwajit Pawar stating therein that he had been to one Hotel Arpit to have food parcel at about 9.15 p.m. on 29/3/2010. At that time, 10-15 persons were gathered there and were giving abuses. By ignoring them, he parked his motorcycle and proceeded to collect the food parcel. Suddenly, one boy came from behind and gave slap to him. He tried to pacify the boy and told him 2 that as he is not in acquaintance with him, let him go on his way. On the call of that boy, 3-4 persons gathered there and started raising voice saying that they are the associates of Chotu Yadav (applicant). It was further stated in the report that the persons gathered on the spot started abusing, beating him and snatched a golden chain as well as golden ring from him. Due to the incident the complainant was in horrified state and made enquiry to the nearby persons. It was informed to him that those persons were Chotu Yadav, Guddu Dube, Chingya, Dhiraj, Prathil etc. On the said report, the offence came to be registered. During the course of investigation, the material was collected by the investigating agency in the form of statements of the witnesses. During the investigation, it was revealed that one Prashant Ambatkar, who was standing in front of Hotel Arpit on 29/3/2010, was also subjected to assault, abuses and snatching of mobile as well as golden chain. Mr. Manohar, learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that there is no material against the applicant and the applicant is behind the bars since nearly one year. He also claims release of the applicant on the ground of parity. The learned APP has filed his reply and strongly opposed the application. Perused the record. The statements of witnesses namely Dr. Vishwajit Pawar, Praveen Ambatkar, Prashant Ambatkar (brother of Praveen Ambatkar), Ramchandra Khapekar (owner of Hotel Arpit), Ramu Neware and Sani Khapekar (employees of Hotel Arpit) establishes the presence of the applicant on the spot. It is also stated by these witnesses that the applicant along with his associates had actively participated in the act of assault on Dr. Pawar as well as Prashant Ambatkar and snatching of golden ornaments. The prima facie material is collected by the investigating agency to show that the 3 applicant was not only present on the spot, but he actively participated in the offence alleged against him. Earlier, the applicant had approached the Sessions Court, Wardha by filing Misc. Criminal Application No. 610/2010 for grant of bail, which was rejected by the order passed by the learned Extra Jt. Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, dated 26/11/2010. It will be useful to consider the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application. The learned Judge has observed that the applicant is involved in serious offences such as offence under Section 325 IPC, 302, 149, 141 IPC, 399 IPC, 394 IPC in Crime Nos.59/04, 214/04, 162/07, 17/09 respectively. Though, the learned Advocate for the applicant submits that in all these cases the applicant is acquitted, the fact was considered by the learned Sessions Judge by observing that that in view of the criminal activities of the applicant, the possibility of tampering of the evidence at the hands of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Insofar as the ground raised by the learned Advocate for the applicant about parity, the learned APP has rightly submitted that the applicant cannot claim parity in view of the fact that the other applicants who were released on bail, stand on different footing. He submitted that there is sufficient material against the applicant showing his involvement in the offence. The other accused persons, who had filed the applications for anticipatory bail were protected by the ad-interim orders and subsequently those applications were allowed by observing that there is no additional material against them. Such is not the case of the applicant. Considering the material on record, I find considerable merit in the submissions of learned APP. In my opinion, in view of the material against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of accordingly. 4 JUDGE Diwale