1 BA-1057.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1057 OF 2011 {For Bail} Haribhau Rama Patil & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Nitin Sejpal for the Applicants. Ms S.D. Shinde, APP, for the State. S/Shri A.H.H. Ponda with N.N. Patil for the complainant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: OCTOBER 04, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for bail by three persons who are alleged to have participated in a murderous assault on one Anil. Anil died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants could not be attributed authorship of the injuries which lead to the death of Anil is not without any substance, at least in so far as the applicants Haribhau and Tukaram are concerned. However, this aspect would have to be considered at the trial. As far as Haribhau 2 BA-1057.11 and Tukaram are concerned, the participation of Tukaram is indicated in the evidence of the witnesses in causing injuries to other persons present and as regards Haribhau, he is stated to have instigated the participants in assaulting the victim. 2. Co-accused Ganesh and Vilas had filed Criminal Application Nos.3573 and 3181 of 2010 which were decided on 7-9-2010. While rejecting their applications, it had been observed that, considering the nature of assault on the part of the applicants leading to the death of Anil, the possibility of their forming an unlawful assembly with the object of doing away with Anil could not be ruled out. After having made this observation and having denied bail to the applicants in those two applications, it would be impermissible for me to decide as to what was the role of Haribhau or Tukaram and admit them to bail. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant may be right in submitting that there cannot be a case of reverse parity. But then since the applicants have been roped in with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC and since their participation is indicated by at least five 3 BA-1057.11 eye-witnesses, right now since charge is framed and the matter may be taken up for trial soon, it may not be appropriate to admit the applicants to bail. The application is therefore rejected. The learned APP may instruct the APP in-charge of the case to have the programme of the trial fixed, since the case is coming up before the trial Court on 14-10-2011 and see that the trial commences within a month and finish it by recording the evidence on a day-to-day basis. If there are any obstacles raised in the counter-case, those obstacles may also be dealt with by the trial Court firmly and speedily so that the trial may also come to an end fast. The learned Judge would obviously take up the case of the applicants and the counter-case one after the other. If the applicants do not create any obstacles in the trial, and if the trial does not conclude by the end of this year, the applicants may approach this Court again. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)