abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3530 OF 2007 Sanjay Chabu Solse .. Applicant V/s State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.R.M. Haridas h/f Mr.Kishor Patil for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is in custody since 29th April 2007 in connection with an offence registered with Ozar Police Station, Nashik under C.R. No.48/2007 punishable under sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. The applicant had previously applied for bail. - 2 - The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 31st August 2007 in Criminal Misc. Application No.190 of 2007 has rejected the application for bail. 4. The prosecution case in short is that in the night between 28th and 29th April 2007, Arjun Ramchandra Jadhav (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") along with his brother Mangesh (deceased) were returning from marriage celebration of one Ravindra Hanumanta Shinge on a motorcycle. At that time, the present applicant along with Sahebrao Balsane and others stopped the motorcycle and assaulted the deceased with iron rod and bamboo. While the complainant was trying to rescue the deceased, Bharat Sitaram Sutar and others also assaulted the complainant. Thereafter the deceased and the complainant were brought to the hospital where Mangesh was declared dead while the complainant was admitted in the hospital. FIR was then recorded forthwith. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that two other co-accused have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Application No.2958 of 2007 and therefore the applicant be granted bail on parity. 6. Perusal of the FIR discloses that the applicants in Criminal Application No.2958 of 2007 were not named - 3 - in the FIR as the persons who stopped the motorcycle or assaulted the deceased while the present applicant has been named by name in the FIR. His case therefore stands on a different footing. The FIR is registered by an eye witness who himself was also injured in the very incident. Thus, there is prima facie material regarding the involvement of the present applicant in the crime. The offence is of serious nature and punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 7. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and also the fact that the complainant is an eye witness who is also a victim in the incident, in my view, the applicant is not entitled to bail. In the circumstances, the application for bail is rejected. 8. It is clarified that all observations made in this order are only prima facie and at the time of trial the learned Sessions Judge shall not in any way be influenced by any of the observations made in this order. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)