1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1167 OF 2010 Shri.Farooque Yusuf Parekh. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.Paryez Memon i/by M. Memon for the Applicant. Shri. Y.S.Shinde, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 3/5/2010 PC : 1 This is an application for grant of regular bail. The applicant is shown as an accused in C.R.No.271/2008 registered by Kashimira Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 392, 120B read with 34 of the I.P.C. and read with 3,3 and 27 of the Arms Act. The incident in question took place on 23.9.2008 at about 10.45p.m. The deceased is one Juber Gulam Patel. It is the prosecution case that deceased was running cable business and over the same he was having enmity with the present applicant as well as one Ramesh 2 Badage. It is the case of the prosecution that due to business rivalry the incident in question took place wherein motor cycle of the deceased was dashed by accent car. Four persons alighted there from and assaulted the deceased. The deceased went below the accent car to save himself. Accused Rajesh shot him by the revolver in the back. In so far as the present applicant is concerned, he has been identified by two witnesses in test identification parade held on 25.09.2008 i.e. by Tabbasum who is the wife of the deceased and one Zaheer Khan who is an eye witness. Both these witnesses have stated in their original statements that they will identify the assailants because the incident took place in the light of the electric pole. The Advocate for the applicant states that case of the applicant is at par with one Rajesh Belani who was granted bail by this court while deciding Criminal Application No.5316/2009. In my view, case of the present applicant cannot be said to be at par with Rajesh Belani. Firstly Rajesh 3 Belani has not been named by the witness Tabbasum. Secondly Rajesh Belani is not identified by Zaheer Khan who appears to be an independent witness. It was then sought to be contended by the applicant that no role is attributed to the present applicant. It is seen that deceased was assaulted by brutal manner. He did not die due to fire arm injury but died due to haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries. Not a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, application is rejected. 2 Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this court. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)