1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5524 OF 2010 Shri Shaikh Zakir Shaikh ...Applicant. v. The State ...Respondents. Mr. Z.M.Avhad, adv. For the Applicant. Mr. S.A.Shaikh, APP. For the Respondent/State. Shri Sandhyanshiv, for the original complainant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. He is accused no.1 in Crime No.167 of 2009 registered under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC by Azadnagar police station of Malegaon. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that first informant Akhtar Ali advanced an amount of Rs.2,000/- as hand loan to the present applicant, who is cousin of said Akhtar Ali. As the amount was not being repaid, Akhtar Ali demanded money twice or thrice on telephone. Because of this, the present applicant got annoyed and on 7.12.2009 at about 10 p.m. he alongwith his father Shaikh Farukh went to the house of Akhtar Ali and abused and threatened him. The present applicant also beat him with fist and kick blows. However, other relatives pacified them and the 2 accused went away but within 15-20 minutes thereafter the present applicant and his father alongwith two others went to the house of Akhtar Ali and began to abuse and threaten and knocked the door of the house of Akhtar Ali. Liyakat Ali, who was brother of Akhtar Ali came out. The present applicant gave a blow with wooden stick on the head of Liyakat Ali, due to which he fell down. His father also assaulted with stick. Remaining accused were instigating them for assault. Because of blow given on the head of Liyakat Ali, he died and the offence came to be registered. Farukh Shaikh is maternal uncle of the deceased and the present applicant is son of the maternal uncle. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that remaining accused have been granted bail. Present applicant had no intention to cause death. According to him, case may fall, at the most, under Section 304 Part II IPC and, therefore, on the principle of parity, he may be granted bail. The learned APP opposed the application. 3 It is true that investigation is completed and the present applicant is in custody for the last more than one year. Still fact remains that the present applicant alone had assaulted on the head of the deceased with a stick blow which proved to be fatal. None of the other accused had caused any injury though father of the present applicant gave stick 3 blow on the other part of the body. Therefore, principle of the parity will not be applicable to the present applicant. Taking into consideration the role played by the present applicant, there is apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution evidence or may abscond. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail. 4 Therefore, application stands rejected. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose off the case as early as possible. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)