[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2080 OF 2008 Rafiq Saheblal Shaikh ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.V.V.Purwant Advocate for Applicant Ms.P.P.Shinde APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 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 anticipatory bail in CR No.20 of 2008 of Jail Road Police Station, Solapur. The said case is mainly under Section 307 of IPC. 3. The injured Mahesh has stated that the present applicant came along with other accused. All of them were armed. Mahesh clearly stated that applicant assaulted him. Mahesh has also stated that applicant assaulted Mahantesh Korde on his [-2-] hand with stick due to which a fracture was caused. Mahantesh received injuries in the said incident. Moreover, medical certificate of Mahantesh shows that he had sustained fracture of right hand. 4. Mr.Purwant, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that applicant had met with an accident due to which he is handicapped and hence, it was not possible for him to have taken part in the incident. He further submitted that there is a cross case and both the sides have received injuries in the said incident. The handicap is not such that the applicant could not have assaulted Mahantesh, hence, I find no merit in this submission. 5. Mr.Purwant further submitted that the other co-accused have been released on bail and hence, applicant may be released on bail. It is well settled that the considerations for bail and anticipatory bail are quite different as observed by the Apex Court in the case of State V. Anil State V. Anil State V. Anil Sharma reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) Page 1039. Sharma reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) Page 1039. Sharma reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) Page 1039. Hence, an accused cannot be granted anticipatory bail on the ground that the co-accused were granted [-3-] bail. 6. Looking to the specific role attributed to the applicant by Mahesh and Mahantesh, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Application is rejected. 8. Applicant is granted time till 14.7.2008 to surrender. 9. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]