..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2267 OF 2008 Dinesh s/o. Sitaram Chavan. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mrs.Sadhana Jadhav, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 12th September, 2008. DATED : 12th September, 2008. DATED : 12th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.156 of 2005 of Khadki Police Station, Pune. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Nilesh Chavan, Rakesh Chavan and Umesh Chavan have been granted bail by this Court and the case of the applicant is similar to that of Nilesh Chavan, Rakesh Chavan and Umesh Chavan. On perusal of the statements of ..(2).. eye witnesses especially Bhagwat Potdar, it is seen that he has not named Nilesh Chavan, Rakesh Chavan and Umesh Chavan. However, Bhagwat in his statement has specifically stated that the present applicant was armed with koyta and he along with two other accused persons i.e. Pintya @ Bharat Mane and Raj Shetty assaulted Samir. In the said assault, Samir sustained about 50 injuries. The injuries are consistent with assault by Koyta. 4. Thereafter it was submitted that co-accused Pintya @ Bharat Mane has been released on bail and the case of the applicant is similar to that of Pintya @ Bharat Mane. Pintya @ Bharat Mane has been granted bail by the Sessions Court. This Court is not bound by any order passed by the Sessions Court. However, on perusal of the order whereby Pintya @ Bharat Mane came to be granted bail, the Court has specifically observed that nothing is recovered, discovered or seized from him. As far as the applicant is concerned, there is recovery of weapon at his instance. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any case of parity between Pintya @ Bharat Mane and the present applicant. ..(3).. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant states that recovery at the instance of the present applicant cannot be relied upon because the said recovery took place about nine months after the incident. The learned APP has pointed out that the applicant was absconding for a period of about six months. Hence recovery could take place only after arrest of applicant. Absconsion is another factor which would go against the applicant. Moreover, the learned APP has pointed out that the applicant is also involved in C.R.No.185 of 2005 of Faraskhana police Station u/sec.363, 324 of IPC. 6. Looking to all the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)