1 1 1 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 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3802 OF 2008 Sudhakar Rajgopal Harijan .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.S.G.Rajput for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.138 of 2007 of Shahunagar police station, Mumbai. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and 11 others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 141 to 144, 146 to 149, 302, 307, 504, 506(II), 427, 120B of IPC and sections 4, 25 of Arms Act. 3. It is the prosecution case that all the accused persons assaulted the deceased with sharp cutting weapons on 16.8.2006 at 8.30 pm. Mr.Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the order dated 25.7.2008 passed by this court in Criminal Application No.2438 of 2008 and submitted that the applicant is entitled for bail on the principle of parity. He submitted that no specific role is attributed to the applicant and to the applicant - Kadiravan in Cri.Appln.No.2438 of 2008. I 2 2 2 have perused the order dated 25.7.2008. It appears that during the investigation, the statement of Shrikumar Rajasinha Pannem has been recorded. Kadiravan was in the employment of Shrikumar Pannem. His statement shows that Kadiravan was present at his place of service at the time of the incident and the place where Kadiravan was employed, was Andheri which is far away from the place of incident i.e. Dharavi. Moreover, there was no recovery of any incriminating article at the instance of Kadiravan. As against this, the presence of the applicant at the scene of offence cannot be doubted. He was present at the scene of offence and was armed with a sword and it is alleged that he prevented the persons who were coming forward to save the deceased. From the facts of the case it is clear that the applicant shared common intention. There is also recovery at the instance of the applicant of the weapon. During the investigation his blood stained clothes have also been attached. The blood on his clothes, according to C.A. report, match with the blood of the deceased. In the circumstances I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The application is rejected. . 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 without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 3 3 3 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)