BA-481-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.481 OF 2011 Lalu Kamruddin Shaikh ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Rabodi Police Station, Dist. Thane ... Respondent Ms. Pooja Bhojne for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 18 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The Applicant is an accused in C.R. No.I-97 of 2009 registered at Rabodi Police Station, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 143 IPC, 147 IPC, 148 IPC, 149 IPC and 109 IPC read with Section 302 of the IPC. The copy of the Charge-Sheet, that is annexed to the Bail Application, shows that the deceased - one Salim Shaikh - was brutally murdered, apparently, by sharp weapons. The Applicant is named as one of the assailants by the First Informant- Smt. Mumtaz, who is the wife of the deceased. It, therefore, cannot be said that there exists no prima facie case against the Applicant. 3. Ms. Bhojane, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, mainly canvassed the prayer for bail on the ground of parity. She pointed out that the co-accused Shakil was granted bail by this Court (Criminal Application No.1049 of 2010, decided on 29th March, 2010) (Coram : R.S. Mohite, J.). I have gone through the said order, BA-481-11.sxw 2 Dixit wherein bail was granted to him on the assumption that no overt act was attributed to him. On a reading of the F.I.R., it appears that overt act had been attributed to the said Shakil by the First Informant-Mumtaz. It is true that the role attributed to the said Shakil and to the present Applicant is similar, but, apparently, that an overt act had been attributed to the said Shakil was not pointed out to the Court when bail was granted to him. 4. In any case, the said Shakil was released on bail on 29th March, 2010. At that time, the trial had not commenced. Now the trial has commenced. Three witnesses have already been examined. It does not appear that the trial is likely to be unduly delayed. 5. The Investigating Officer, who is present before the Court, assures that the prosecution witnesses shall be kept present on all the dates of hearing, as may be fixed by the trial Court. 6. Under these circumstances, there would be no question of granting bail to the Applicant either on the ground of parity, or otherwise. 7. The Bail Application is rejected. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]