jpc ba559-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.559 OF 2011 Vivek @ Vicky Mahadeo Jarad ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents and another Mr. Subhash Jha i/by Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar for the applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 21st July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Subhash Jha, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. R. V. Newton, the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant and other accused in this case are alleged to have assaulted one Chandreshakher on 20th June, 2010, which assault resulted in the death of the said Chanderashekhar. The contention of Mr. Jha, the learned advocate for the applicant, is that the role attributed to the present applicant is comparatively minor and that therefore, his case for bail should be treated differently from the main accused who are alleged to have assaulted the deceased with amike stand and iron bar. jpc ba559-11.sxw 2 3. Though it is true that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased only with fists and kicks, it cannot be ignored that the assault by fists and kicks allegedly was made, when the main accused were assaulting the deceased with mike stand and iron bar. As many as 17 injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The applicant had accompanied the main accused and had dragged the deceased out from his shop. It it is not, that an active role in the incident is not attributed to the present applicant. 4. Moreover, the application made by the co-accused- Kamlesh Bhondve was rejected by this Court by the order dated 18th February, 2011( Cri. Bail Application No. 181/2011, Coram: J. H. Bhatia, J.). I have been shown a copy of the said order, which is taken on record. There does not appear to be much distinction between the case of the said Kamlesh Bhondve and the present applicant. 5. Mr. Jha pointed out to me that though the first information report purports to give the names of assailants, in the printed prescribed column, meant for giving the details of the names of the suspected accused, the name only of accused No.1 Deepak Surwanshi has been mentioned and others are described merely 'as 7 to 8 associates of the said accused, whose names and addresses were not known'. Indeed, this prima facie suggests that the time, when the jpc ba559-11.sxw 3 Police gathered information about the involvement of the present applicant, and the source of such information, may not be the same, as is being projected by the investigating agency. The fact, however, remains that there are statements of eye witnesses who are also implicating the applicant. It would not be possible at this stage to undertake meticulous evaluation of the material that is available against the applicant. 6. The application is rejected. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)