1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1457 OF 2011 Vinod Raju Reddy ..Applicant. v/s. The State ..Respondent. Mr. V.B.Koshe, adv. for the Applicant. Mr. Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 12th December, 2011 PC : 1 Applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime no.205 of 2010 registered at Bundgarden police station under Sections 143, 302, 146, 147, 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that on 10.5.2010 at about 8 p.m. Ravi Tamboli and his friends were present in Vyasyamshala. As Ravi Tamboli was tired, he came out. At that time Tipya @ Sultan Shaikh, Vinod Reddy, Rahul Salve, Amalya @ Amit Waghmare, Chunya @ Balu. Vinod was having koyta while three others were having wooden stumps. As soon as they reached near Ravi Tamboli, said Vinod asked him had he become very powerful and started assaulting him with the sickle or koyta. His companions also began to beat Ravi with wooden stumps. Friends of Ravi 2 tried to intervene but they were also threatened and, therefore, they ran away. Because of the assault, Ravi Tamboli suffered number of bleeding injuries all over the body. After the culprits left the spot, said Ravi Tamboli was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Rakesh Tamboli, who is brother of the deceased Ravi. He had come to the spot after getting information of the incident and he himself had taken Ravi to the hospital. In the F.I.R. also, he stated that deceased Ravi had told him that he was assaulted by the above referred five persons. There were number of witnesses at the spot. Their statements were also recorded next day. P.M.Report reveals that there were 20 incised wounds and five abrasions all over the body and out of them atleast 10 incised wounds were on the head with multiple fracture of the skull vault, corresponding to the external incised wounds. Death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. 3 From the facts noted above, prima-facie, it is clear that incised wounds causing death were caused by the present applicant Vinod. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the oral dying declaration referred to in the F.I.R., it was stated that the deceased Ravi was assaulted by five persons with koytas or sickles and some other accused persons have been granted bail and, therefore, the present 3 applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the principle of parity. Rakesh, who lodged the F.I.R. was not eye witness. Ravi must be in very bad condition because of number of injuries referred to above. He informed that he was assaulted by five persons with sickles. However, there are number of eye witnesses, who stated that the present applicant was armed with sickle or koyta while three others were armed with stumps. It was not clear out of the five persons, who was not armed with stumps or any weapon. Giving benefit of that, bail was granted to Balu by this Court. Taking into consideration the circumstances, case against the present applicant can not be equated with the case against Balu, who was granted bail by this Court. Therefore, the principle of parity will not apply. Prima- facie, it appears that the present applicant mercilessly killed Ravi by assaulting him with sickle and causing 20 injuries including 10 fractures. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the present applicant. If the bail is granted, he may either abscond or may tamper with the prosecution evidence. 4 Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)