[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.442 OF 2009 Nitin Digamber Dhotre ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents ... Ms.P.Kakade advocate for Applicant Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 08, 2009 DATE : APRIL 08, 2009 DATE : APRIL 08, 2009 IN CHAMBER AT 2.40 P.M. IN CHAMBER AT 2.40 P.M. IN CHAMBER AT 2.40 P.M. 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. 265 of 2006 of Bhosari Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The Applicant had earlier preferred an application for bail before this Court which came to be rejected by order dated 9.7.2008. The present application has been preferred for bail on the fresh ground that the co-accused Krishna Waghmare has been granted bail and the role of [-2-] Krishna Waghmare and the present applicant is similar, hence, bail is sought on the ground of parity. 4. In order to claim parity, reliance is placed on the statements of two witnesses i.e. Nandkumar Raut and Vishal Lande. On perusal of the statements of these two witnesses, it is seen that they have attributed only general role to all the accused and no specific role has been ascribed by these persons to any of the accused persons. However, on perusal of the statement of complainant Dattatraya Lonkar, it is seen that he has ascribed a specific role to some of the accused persons. Complainant Dattatraya has specifically stated that present applicant took out a Koyata, Krishna Waghmare took out a sword and other accused persons were armed with weapons. However, thereafter, complainant Dattatraya stated that Nitin Dhotre, Babu Patole and Pramod Shelar assaulted deceased Nandkumar with the weapons in their hands. Thus, it is seen that the complainant has attributed specific role of assault with deadly weapons only to three accused including the present applicant, whereas the complainant has not attributed any role [-3-] of assault to co-accused Krishna Waghmare. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that any case of parity is made out, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 5. Application is rejected. Trial is expedited. 6. The learned trial Judge shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order while deciding the trial. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]