[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2387 OF 2008 Javed Rashid Choudhary ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Debjyoti Talukdar Advocate for Applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 11, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.79 of 2007 of Lonawala (Rural) Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant along with other accused as well as deceased Sachin went for a picnic. All of them were having liquor, however no liquor was given to Sachin, hence, Sachin extinguished the lamp. Due to this, co-accused Sheru slapped Sachin. The [-2-] present applicant also assaulted Sachin. The scuffle started between Sachin and Sheru. Sachin started running away. At that time, the present applicant, Sheru, Prakash and Irfan Qureshi followed him. After about 15 minutes, the accused persons returned back, however, Sachin had not returned. These facts have been stated by witness Papa Avaghade. Thereafter, the dead body of Sachin was found in the valley at Lohagad, which was at a distance of about 10 minutes from where the scuffle took place. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that co-accused Prakash Dodake and Sheru have been released on bail and the case of the applicant is similar to that of these co-accused. As far as the case of co-accused Prakash is concerned, it is seen that he has not assaulted Sachin at the initial stage and at the initial stage only the applicant and Sheru had assaulted Sachin. The role attributed to Prakash Dodake is that he along with other accused followed Sachin after the scuffle with Sheru and the present applicant. Thus, it is seen that role of applicant and co-accused Prakash is not similar. [-3-] 5. I have perused the order whereby co-accused Sheru came to be granted bail. The learned Sessions Judge while granting bail, has observed that on perusing the record, the role of the present accused (Sheru) is similar to the other accused who are already released on bail and therefore, Sheru is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is seen that the case of Sheru is not similar to any of the accused persons, hence, these observations made by the learned Sessions Judge are totally erroneous. The case of Sheru cannot be said to be similar to any of the other accused persons and hence, bail could not have been granted to Sheru on the ground of parity. No reliance can be placed on an order which has proceeded on erroneous facts. Thus, this order cannot help the applicant in any manner. 6. The material on record prima facie shows that the applicant is involved in the murder of Sachin, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail. 7. Application is rejected. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]