1 Appln 4828-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4828 OF 2010 Shahnawaz Yakub Shiekh ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Shivraj R. Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. . The applicant, who is alleged to have participated in assault on one Salim Shaikh which led to Salim Shaikh's death, claims bail. The learned Counsel for the applicant elaborately pointed out the evidence which has been collected by the prosecution and submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the applicant to the crime. The applicant had been named as participant in the assault by victim's wife Mumtaz, who had filed 2 Appln 4828-10 a report immediately after the incident. She had stated that she had herself seen the assault. She had also stated that she intervened and requested the assailants not to hit her husband but assailants did not heed. A blow by Sword by one Babu Kalya resulted in victim's ear being cut and fell on the first informant's hand. Her clothes were stained with blood. Her clothes had been seized and had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. There are found to have blood stains of Group 'A' which were of her husband. Thus, her presence as stated by her in her report is not improbable. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that the investigating officer had recorded supplementary statement of first informant on 14th June, 2009 which shows that the first informant had in fact come to know of the incident and names of the participants in the assault from one Anwar and her daughter 3 Appln 4828-10 Reshma. Statement of one Rais Usman Shaikh was recorded on 31st May, 2009 would also show that the first informant shouted to have her husband saved. He also names the applicant as participant in the assault. He claims to have thrown brick at the assailants. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that even this witness may not have seen the incident and his account of the incident is hear say. 3. The learned APP is right in submitting that the question as to whether first informant Mumtaz and Rais Usman Shaikh had actually seen the incident or not, will have to be decided at the trial. Prima facie, there is no reason to discard their versions at this stage. Particularly, since clothes of Mumtaz are shown to have stains of Blood group 'A' which would strengthen to her claim since she was present at the time of incident. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant 4 Appln 4828-10 submitted that one Shakil Ahmed Allauddin Kazi had been admitted to bail by order dated 29th March, 2010. He submitted that role of the said Shakil Ahmed Allauddin Kazi is not different from that of present applicant Shahnawaz Yakub Sheikh and therefore, applicant may also be admitted to bail. For this purpose, he relied on Judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Nanha S/o. Nabhan Kha v. State of U.P., reported in 1993 CRI.L.J.938. First, this Court has observed that in the order dated 29th March, 2010, no further role was attributed to Shakil Ahmed Allauddin Kazi whereas the present applicant is alleged to have hit the victim on abdomen with a weapon like knife or sickle. This has been specifically mentioned in the FIR itself. Secondly, for claiming bail on the ground of parity, it would have to be shown the case of the two applicants is identically similar. There cannot be any fixed formula that merely one has been granted 5 Appln 4828-10 bail, all other accused also may be admitted to bail. The present applicant is not entitled to bail. 5. Criminal Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)