1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 351/2010 Kiran s/o Bhaskarrao Wankhade vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Chikhaldara. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mrs. S.S.Loney, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the non-applicant. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J DATE : 06.04.2010 1. This is an application for release on bail. 2. The applicant is named as accused in Crime No. 56/2009 registered with Police Station Chikhaldara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 504, 506, 147,148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The assailants were strangers not known to the victims. They had assaulted the persons travelling in a Maruti Van on the ground that the said Maruti Van had overtaken another vehicle 'Tavera' in which accused persons were travelling. 4. According to the prosecution since the accused were unknown to the victims, they have not been named in the FIR. 5. The application for bail is pressed on the grounds as follows: 2` a) No specific role has been attributed to any specific accused. b) All other accused persons have been released on bail. c) One amongst the accused namely, Sahzadkhan Shafiq Khan Pathan's confessional statement is recorded by the police in which it is alleged that he has accepted having used the weapon i.e. Gupti; d) In view of the direction of the investigation, Sahzadkhan Shafiq Khan Pathan has confessed to be assailant . However, he is released on bail. 6. It is, therefore, urged that the present applicant is essentially entitled for bail on the ground of parity as well as on the ground of lack of involvement. 7. Heard both sides, perused the documents and charge sheet. 8. The memorandum of panchnama and confessional statement of Sahzadkha Shafiq Khan Pathan has been relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant. 9. In the test identification parade the accused persons have been identified. It is not clear whether after completion of identification parade supplementary statements of the witnesses have been recorded to relate particular accused with a particular act of assault. Yet is not a matter at this stage to reach a conclusion in favour of the applicant, since it would be a matter to be decided by the trial court as to whether any act of assault is attributable to a particular accused. 3` 10. Perusal of the statement of Sahzadkha Shafiq Kha Pathan driver of the vehicle in which assailants were travelling does not suggested that any particular accused and in particular present applicant does not have any role whatsoever in the matter. 11. It is seen that present is a case where the unlawful assembly consisting of unidentified persons has committed act of assault, murder and attempt to murder etc.. 12. This being a case of unlawful assembly, who have caused the act of murder, in fact, each and every person would be responsible for done by any one. Had it been a case that the accused were identified initially and role of each and individual accused was independently assorted, in that case on account of possible segregation and fatal assault and excessive action was attributed to a particular accused, rest of the accused may been in a position to argue to claim distinction from main assailant and may claim the bail. 13. In the present case, as the accused were comprising of group of unidentified persons, at this stage it would be impossible to even prima facie arrive at a conclusion that the applicant was not an author of the fatal assault. 14. The fact that applicant is the owner of vehicle Tavera used by accused, and his getting crazy on fact that the trival Maruti van had overtaken seems to be probable. 4` 15. The learned Advocate for the applicant had tendered for perusal of the court the order granting bail to the other accused. Perusal of the order does not reveal anything or circumstance by which it could be considered that the cases of the accused who are released on bail can be made applicable for releasing the applicant on bail. 16. Insofar as the fact of release of other accused on bail is concerned, in the light of the discussion hereinabove, the fact that all other accused are released on bail, would not by itself entitled the present applicant to be released on bail. 17. The principle of parity has no application in a case of present nature. 18. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE patle 5`