1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1551 OF 2010 (Kailash Arun Thakare and others .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri A.S. Parihar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 18TH OCTOBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicants are seeking regular bail in Crime No. 51/2010 registered with the Police Station, Warora, District Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are involved in the crime due to enmity. He further submits that except suspicion raised in the report of Sheshrao, there is no material against the applicants to connect them with the alleged offence. Learned Counsel further submits that the other accused are already released on bail and he seeks release of the present applicants on bail on the ground of parity. Reply is filed by the learned APP and the record is also produced. Perused the reply and the record. The record shows that the statements recorded by investigating agency, namely, Sheshrao, Suplabai and Rahul give the details about the grudge developed in the mind of applicant No.1 in respect of the sale of some of the agricultural property. The threats were also extended prior to the incident dated 18.03.2010. The Postmortem Report reveals 19 injuries all over the body of the deceased. The investigating agency has recovered weapons i.e. knife from applicant No.1 and iron plough (nagar fas) from applicant No.2 and the blood stained clothes are recovered at the instance of 2 applicant No.3. There is prima faice sufficient material against these applicants to connect them with the said crime. These witnesses are the relatives of applicant No.1 and the apprehension expressed by the investigating agency that the applicants may pressurize these witnesses if the applicants are released on bail is justified. In view of the record available and the reply filed by the learned APP, I am of the opinion that this is not fit case for granting bail to the applicants. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.