..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1420 OF 2008 1. Dipak Markandey Roy, & 2. Chinya @ Yogendra Amarsinha Rawat. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Rajiv L. Patil, Sr. Adv. a/w. Viresh V. Purwant, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.369 of 2006 of Bhosari Police Station, Pune. The said case is mainly under Sections 302, 326 of Indian Penal Code. 3. In the present case, two persons have died and about 12 persons were injured. In the present case, one Sagar and one Chandrakant died in the ..(2).. incident. The informant who is an eye witness has stated that the accused persons including the applicants went to the house of Chandrakant. Applicant No.2 broke open the door of the house of Chandrakant with axe. All the accused persons entered the house of Chandrakant and they pulled Chandrakant and brought him on the road. There Chandrakant came to be assaulted by all the persons. At that time, co-accused Popat Landage stabbed Chandrakant with sword in the stomach. One other co-accused assaulted Chandrakant on the head. Thereafter the motorcycle of Chandrakant was thrown on the body of Chandrakant and Chandrakant and the motorcycle was set on fire. At that time, both the applicants were armed with axe. At that time all the persons were loudly shouting beat, cut etc. This fact shows that the applicants shared the common intention of other persons. In addition thereto, applicant No.1 has assaulted Sagar on the head with a stone. Sagar sustained 39 injuries in the incident. The cause of death of Sagar is due to injury on head. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that co-accused Pintya @ Ravi Landage ..(3).. has been released on bail by Sessions Court and the role of the applicants is similar to that of Pintya @ Ravi Landage. I have perused the order whereby bail came to be granted to Pintya @ Ravi Landage. On perusal of the said order, it is seen that Pintya was admitted in the hospital and looking to the medical papers the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there is some doubt whether Pintya could have participated in the incident. However, it is not the case of the applicants that they were also admitted in the hospital at the time when Pintya was admitted in the hospital. On perusal of the order whereby Pintya was granted bail, I find that there is no case of parity. 5. Thereafter, it is submitted that there is a cross-case and in the cross-case also one person died and four persons were injured. It is true that there are rival parties and cross-cases have been lodged. However, looking to the statements of eye witnesses and the role attributed to the applicants, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Hence, application for bail is rejected. ..(4).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)