Cri. Apln. No. 2818/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2418 OF 2011 Shokat Balambhai Sayyad ....Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for State/respondent. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 4th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for bail in Cr. No. 283/2011 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar for offences punishable under sections 302, 365, 149 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The papers of investigation were made available. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by mother of the deceased. She has contended that on the night between 24 and 25th of August, due to shouting of somebody in front of her house, she came out and she noticed that 5 to 6 persons were assaulting her son. She has contended that those persons then kept her son in an auto and they took him away. She has taken the names of Yatin (Matin), Shoukat (applicant) and Jafar. She could identify these three persons as she knew that these persons had some quarrel with deceased and they were seen roaming Cri. Apln. No. 2818/2011 2 around her house from the date of quarrel. She has contended that on the next morning when she learnt that her son was admitted in the hospital, she went to hospital after 8 am. She has contended that her son disclosed to her that the aforesaid persons had taken him towards Buranagar and there he was assaulted by Matin, Shokat Sayyed and Jafar alias Jafrya. Babu, son of complainant, succumbed to injuries at about 11 am on 25.8.2010. 3. Papers of investigation show that the death took place due to anti mortem injuries which include fracture of right leg. But the injuries like contusions and abrasions were found almost all over the body. The death took place due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. It was submitted that the weapons came to be recovered at the instance of main accused Matin. 4. The advocate of the applicant submitted that other accused like Irshad, Yousuf and Jahir are granted bail and the case of the present applicant is not different from the three accused to whom bail is granted. He pointed out some statements of witnesses. He submitted that to some witnesses in dying declaration it was disclosed that Jahir and Irshad were also involved, but they are also granted bail. 5. The APP submitted that the statement of the complainant shows Cri. Apln. No. 2818/2011 3 that there was enmity between the present applicant and the deceased and the complainant had identified the present applicant at the time when the deceased was taken in one auto. He submitted that in the dying declaration given to the complainant the name of the present applicant was taken by the deceased, but the names of other accused like Jahir, Irshad and Yusuf were not taken. The statements of other witnesses, who had heard the dying declaration shows that the dying declaration was given to mother and at that time they were present. There is statement of police constable to show that to him the dying declaration was given and the deceased had taken the names of Matin and the present applicant. Thus, the main allegations were against Matin and the present applicant and there were allegations against Jafrya alias Jafar. The Court which granted bail to above accused must have considered this circumstance and there is always possibility of implication of more names subsequent to giving of report. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the case of the present applicant is not similar with the Jahir, Yousuf and Irshad. So this Court holds that there is sufficient material against the present applicant to make out prima facie case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. So on the ground of parity bail cannot be granted. The witnesses are from the same locality and as the present applicant was on enmical terms with the deceased, there is possibility of tampering with the witnesses and there is possibility of creating danger to the life of the Cri. Apln. No. 2818/2011 4 witnesses. So the application of the present applicant cannot be allowed. The application is rejected. 6. The above observations are only for the purpose of deciding the present application and they will not come in the way of the trial Court while deciding the case. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln2418.11