IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.381 OF 2009 Mukund Jana Bhoir ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri Nitin Pradhan a/w Shri S.D. Khot for Applicant Shri Rajesh More, APP for State Shri R.D. Suryavanshi for Intervenor ---- WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2009 Sangeeta G. Patil ...Applicant Vs. Mukund J. Bhoir & Anr. ... Respondents --- Shri R.D. Suryavanshi for Applicant Shri Nitin Pradhan a/w Shri S.D. Khot for Respondent no.1 Shri Rajesh More, APP for State for Respondent No.2 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, Learned APP for the State and the Learned Counsel for the Complainant. 2. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Applicant is an original accused No.1. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity since the other accused No.2 Pramod @ Gadlya Madhavi has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 14th January,2009. It is submitted that the only allegation against the said Accused Nos.1 and 2 is that two witnesses had overheard that the said two accused had conspired and given a contract to kill the deceased on account of union rivalry. It is also alleged that the deceased about 8 months prior to the said incident, had tried to kill the original accused no.1 i.e. the Applicant herein and, therefore, the Applicant has given a contract to kill the said deceased. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant has tried to distinguish the order, which was passed in the case of Pramod- the Accused No.2. He has invited my attention to the said order dated 14th January, 2009. He submitted that this Court had observed that the said accused was merely standing near the original accused no.1 and had not participated in the said proceeding, which had taken place. He, therefore, submitted that the Applicant was not entitled to get bail on the ground of parity. 6. In my view, the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant cannot be accepted. The complaint was registered on 28th May, 2008. Both the Accused were arrested on 30th May, 2008 and the statements of the two witnesses were recorded on the very next date stating that they had overheard the Applicant conspiring to kill the deceased. It is difficult to rely on the said statements. Even otherwise, the Applicant is entitled to get bail on the ground of parity since there is no other material on record except the statements of these two witnesses who claimed to have overheard the applicant conspiring to kill the deceased. 7. The Applicant, therefore, be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount in respect of the offences vide C.R. No.I-197 of 2008 registered at Mahatma Phule Police Station, Kalyan. He shall, however, not to enter the jurisdiction of Kalyan Taluka Police Station till the hearing and final disposal of the trial. The Applicant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. 8. An affidavit has been filed by the wife of the deceased, in which she has expressed an apprehension that the Applicant being the influential person may threaten the prosecution witnesses. If any, further complaint is received by the police, in that event, on an application being made for cancellation of bail, the bail granted to the Applicant shall be cancelled. The Applicant shall give his new address to the Superintendent of Jail before he is released on bail and report to the Thane Nagar Police Station once in a week for a period of six months and, thereafter, once in a month till disposal of the case. 9. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made by this Court while granting bail to the Applicant since these observations are essentially of prima facie nature. The Trial Court shall decide the case on merits and in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly both the applications are disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.