IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 2009 Mr Ravikiran vishnupant Ingavale, ..Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra, Respondent. Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior counsel, i/b Mr A.B.Vagyani, for the applicant. Mr J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the respondent-State. Mr M.K.Kocharekar i/b Prakash Naik,for the original complainant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 06/05/200 DATE : 06/05/200 DATE : 06/05/2009 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the applicant,Mr Kocharekar, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr Yagnik, learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.N0.131 of 2008 of Juna Rajwada Police Station, Kolhapur. The crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302,307,323 read with 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in brief,is that on 14.9.2008 at 9.50 pm, when Ganpati procession was proceeding for immersion of Ganpati idol, the group of the complainant and the group of the applicant, at the relevant time, were following each other in the procession. It is alleged that one Rahul Raosaheb Ingavale pointed out the deceased to his father Raosaheb, when the present applicant allegedly said, let us not to leave him (the deceased) and beat him. Immediately thereafter Raosaheb Ingavale, Uday Ingavale, Rahul Ingavale and the present applicant assaulted the deceased with fist and kick blows. Thereafter, Raosaheb Ingavale gave order to kill the deceased, when, it is alleged, Uday Ingavale took out a sharp edged weapon and assaulted the deceased on his chest. It is against this back drop, Mr Dhakephalkar,learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant cannot be stated to have shared the intention of Uday Ingavale. He further submitted that the applicant is entitled for bail on parity with Rahul Raosaheb Ingavale, who has been granted bail by order dated 16th March, 2009 in Criminal Case No.1020 of 2009. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 16.3.2009 reads thus; "Looking at the FIR and the statement of eye-witnesses, the only role attributed to the present applicant is that he had pointed out the deceased to his father Raosaheb. There is no material on record to indicate that he shared the intention of the persons who have given the order to kill him or to assault or the persons who have actually assaulted the deceased with a knife. It is alleged that a single blow was given by the accused Uday to the deceased on his chest. The post mortem notes also indicate that the cause of death was a single blow which was inflicted on the chest of the deceased." Mr Dhakephalkar, submitted that there is no difference between the role of Rahul Ingavale and the present applicant. They both assaulted the deceased with fist and kick blows. Mr Yagnik, learned APP invited my attention to the utterances of the present applicant and submitted that there is a difference between the role of these two accused. It is true that the present applicant ordered to beat the deceased. His utterances, however, do not indicate that he ordered to kill, as is seen from the utterances of Raosaheb Ingavale. I do not find any difference between the role of the present applicant and Rahul Ingavale and hence in my opinion, he is entitled for bail on parity. However, I am inclined to impose stringent conditions in view of the fact that the present applicant is an influential person and that three criminal cases are pending against him. Hence, I pass the following order. . The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to condition that the applicant shall not enter the limits of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation for any purpose whatsoever, except for attending the date/s of hearing before the Sessions Court, Kolhapur. This condition shall remain operative till conclusion of the trial. The applicant shall inform his address to the concerned police station where he proposes to stay during this period and shall report to the nearest police station from the place of his residence on every Saturday between 10 and 11 am till conclusion of the trial. It is made clear that these conditions shall not be relaxed/modified till conclusion of the trial. The trial is expedited. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)