{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3561 OF 2010 Sharanbasappa Siddhappa Sherikar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. R.N.Dhorde h/f Mr.S.B.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D,R.Kale, APP for respondent State Mr. S.V.Gundre, Advocate for the complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant once again prays for his release on bail in connection with Crime No.138/2009 registered with Omerga police station, Dist- Osmanabad for an offence punishable u/s 302, 201 r/w 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed the submissions of learned APP, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the original complainant. {2} 3. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the change in circumstance, for seeking bail over again, is that when the earlier application of the present applicant was rejected at that time the applicant was not equipped with the charge sheet and other documents relied on by the prosecution, which he now possess. This Court is not in agreement with this submission, as this Court had perused the said documents while rejecting the earlier application of the applicant. 4. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the observations of this Court in the order dated 04.03.2010 passed in Criminal application No.666/2010, which read thus- “The said spot is shown and traced at the instance of main accused Mallikarjun. Role alleged against applicant No.2 (present applicant) is that he has participated initially in assault and later in cutting the body into pieces. So far as recovery at his instance of applicant No.2 is concerned, the banyan used at the time of incident is recovered so also he pointed out the spot where burnt pieces of Chappal of deceased were recovered. Human bones so also a nylon rope used to tie the gunny bags was recovered at the spot. At the same time, part of the cloths on the body of the deceased were recovered. From this it is clear that the role alleged against the applicant No.1 is to bring the deceased at the spot and role alleged against applicant No.2 (present applicant) is he has participated in the murder of the deceased and cutting the body into pieces”. 5. Thus, it is clear that the there is nexus between the act {3} alleged against the applicant and death of deceased. The above observations of this Court were based on the material collected during the investigation and brought to the notice of this Court. Thus, even as on today, there is no change in circumstances about these observations. If it so, the present application is nothing but a second chance on the same set of facts, which is not permissible in law. Consequently, the application, sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3561-10 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4483 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3561 OF 2010 Vishwanath Ramanna Rajgond APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. S.V.Gundre, Advocate for the applicant Mr. R.N.Dhorde h/f Mr.S.B.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. D,R.Kale, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. Notice. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Mr.Dhorde for respondent No.2. 2. By the present application u/s 301 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant seeks to assist the APP in opposing criminal application No.3561/2010 for which the respondents have no objection. Consequently, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “A” and “B” and stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3561-10