1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No.220/2011 ( Smt. Kalpana Wd/o Baseshankar ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.M. Daga, Adv. for applicant. Mr. S.M. Bhagde, A.P.P. for respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI J. DATE : 8.6.2 011 . 1. The applicant who has been charged with an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.106/2010 registered at Police Station Sakoli, District Bhandara, has filed this application for her release on bail. 2. The prosecution case is that the applicant – accused married Sunil – the deceased. There were differences in their matrimonial life. Incident occurred on 14/7/2010 near village Ukara within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sakoli, District Bhandara. The deceased was called at a particular spot on the pretext that his wife i.e. applicant – accused was injured. The deceased and his son 2 Ketan aged 17 years went to the spot. At that time deceased was attacked by three unknown persons. As a result of injuries, sustained by him, he died. Accordingly, the offence was registered at the Police Station Sakoli. 3. The applicant accused filed an application for grant of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. By his order dated 29/3/2011, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, rejected the application for bail holding that prima facie case of involvement of the applicant – accused in the offence of murder is made out. While arriving at his conclusion the learned Additional Sessions Judge took aid of the statement of Ketan, the son of deceased. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant – accused placed before this Court the certified copy of the statement of Ketan, recorded by the police. It shows that on the day of incident he and his father went to the spot after learning that his mother was lying there in an injured condition. On reaching to the spot, he and the deceased saw the applicant accused lying on the ground. She did not wake up despite call. At that time, three strangers appeared and assaulted the deceased. Then they made him and the applicant - accused 3 to sit on the motorcycle. One of them, drove motorcycle and dropped them on the road near their house. He and applicant – accused (his mother) returned to the house. Immediately thereafter the applicant – accused went outside the house. It is, therefore, obvious that assault on the deceased was preplanned with the active involvement of the applicant – accused. In that light of the matter the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the bail application. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant – accused contended that other co-accused have been released on bail and on the ground of parity the present applicant – accused is also entitled for the same treatment. I have perused the order dated 9th March 2011, releasing the accused Dinesh @ Doma Devidas Khode on bail and order dated 31/3/2011, releasing the accused Sheikh Shafi Sheikh Sattar on bail, both passed by this Court. On the basis of the evidence appearing against the co-accused namely Sheikh Shafi, it was thought fit to release him on bail. 6. Even on perusal of the statement of Ketan it appears that when the incident occurred it was dark and therefore, he could not see the assailants. It seems to be the 4 reason for the release of other co-accused on bail. Same yardstick cannot be applied to the case of present applicant – accused. The statement of Ketan makes out strong prima facie case against the applicant – accused and as such her case is distinguishable from the other co-accused. That being so, the ground of parity does not help her case. 7. In the result, there being no merit in this application, it is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.