[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2416 OF 2008 Pappu @ Khandu Dattatray Pachpind ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.V.B.Koshe Advocate for Mr.Prashant Patil for Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.119 of 2008 of Dehuroad Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 302 r.w.34 of IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant along with other accused assaulted Tanaji. The [-2-] role attributed to the applicant is that he assaulted Tanaji with sword. The post mortem notes show that there were 16 injuries on the body of Tanaji. Most of the injuries are consistent with the assault by sword. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that co-accused Shantaram and Shyam Dabhade have been released on bail by the Sessions Court and the case of the applicant is similar to that of Shantaram and Shyam Dabhade. I have perused both the orders whereby co-accused Shantaram and co-accused Shyam Dabhade came to be released on bail. On perusal of the order whereby Shantaram came to be granted bail, it is seen that bail was granted to Shantaram mainly on the ground that name of Shantaram is not mentioned in the FIR and there was no material to show that the identification parade of Shantaram was held. At the time when the said order was passed, it could not be shown to the Court that identification parade of Shantaram was indeed held and he had been identified in the said parade. The learned Sessions Judge decided the application and granted bail on the material which was available before [-3-] him. At that time, test identification parade memo was not before the Court, hence, on this ground, bail came to be granted to Shantaram. 5. As far as Shyam Dabhade is concerned, the learned Sessions granted bail to the said accused. First of all it is an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and this Court is not bound by any order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Secondly, it may be stated that the State has challenged the said order whereby the co-accued Shyam has been granted bail. 6. As far as the present applicant is concerned, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that he has not been named in the FIR and no description has been given by any of the witnesses in respect of the unknown persons. It is true that in the FIR, it is stated that Shyam and two unknown persons assaulted the deceased. No doubt, description has not been given by the witnesses, however, six witnesses have identified the applicant in the test identification parade as the person who assaulted deceased Tanaji with sword. As observed earlier, the injuries reflected in the [-4-] post mortem notes, are consistent with assault by sword. The deceased has been brutally assaulted. Looking to the role played by the applicant and other material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]