1 Cri-A-4234-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4234 OF 2010 IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 389 OF 2009 Raju @ Mannu Tahir Hussain ... Applicant/Accused Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent/ Complainant. Mr. H.E. Mooman,Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. P.H.Kantharia, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 1st December, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned APP. Perused the police papers and the bail orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judges granting bail to four other accused persons. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.3.2009, at about 1.45 a.m. or 2 a.m. deceased Parvez was assaulted by the present applicant Raju @ Mannu, Ibrahim, @ Ibu, one Azam, one Guddu, Rashid and some other persons with knives and other weapons. The report was lodged by his brother. Post-mortem report reveals that he had suffered as many as 18 injuries, most of which were 2 Cri-A-4234-10.sxw incised wounds and there was also stabbing. The cause of death was shown to be shock and hemorrhage due to stab injuries to liver. Name of the present applicant is clearly shown as one of the assailants not only in the FIR, but in the statements of other witnesses also. There is also circumstantial evidence in the form of discovery of blood stained clothes from the present applicant. In view of the facts and the specific statements beginning with the FIR which was lodged immediately, it is clear that the present applicant had assaulted the deceased with knife. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that four other accused persons were granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judges and on the principal of parity, bail should be granted to the present applicant also. After perusal of the orders, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judges found one or the other reason in favour of those accused persons and granted bail. As the Additional Sessions Judges had given reasons and found some discrepancies in the prosecution evidence in respect of those persons, bail was granted. The bail granted to them has not been challenged by the prosecution. It will not be proper for this Court to comment on the said orders because those orders are not challenged. However, as far as the present applicant is concerned, I do not find any inconsistency anywhere. Taking into consideration the nature of offence and 3 Cri-A-4234-10.sxw the brutal murder, I find that it is not a fit case to grant bail. 4. The Application stands rejected. However, the present applicant is in custody since 25.3.2009. The case is already committed to the Court of Sessions and charge is also framed. Therefore, the trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the case as early as possible, and preferably within three months. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)