..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2598 OF 2008 1. Shri.Sanjay Dharma Gaikar, & 2. Shri.Vijay Dharma Gaikar. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Devendranath Joshi, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 14th August, 2008. DATED : 14th August, 2008. DATED : 14th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-125 of 2008 of Shahapur Police Station. The said case is under Sections 323, 427 and 306 of IPC. 3. The applicants are the nephews of the deceased. The land standing in the name of the deceased and his brother and sister was sold. The father of the applicants had to give the share of ..(2).. the sale proceeds to the deceased. However, he refused to give the share of the deceased from the sale proceeds. The sale proceeds were taken by the father of the applicants and the applicants. When the deceased asked for his share of the money, the applicants and their father abused the deceased and told him that he will not get the money. On 20.6.2008 the applicants came to the house of the deceased. There was dispute in relation to the money. At that time, the applicants assaulted the deceased. The applicants told the deceased that they would not give any money to the deceased and they would make it difficult for him to live. While leaving, the applicants along with others threw stones at the house of the deceased and caused damage. Due to this incident, the deceased was upset and he told his wife that nothing remains for him to live and it is better that he should die. Thereafter the deceased consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that coaccused Balu Shingole has been granted anticipatory bail and the case of the ..(3).. applicants is similar to that of Balu Shingole. As far as this aspect is concerned, on perusal of the material it is seen that the case of Balu Shingole is not similar to that of the present applicants. Hence, there is no case of parity. 5. The material on record clearly implicates the applicants. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 6. At the request of learned Advocate for the applicants, time to surrender is granted upto 25th August, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)