1 CA-3638.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3638 OF 2010 Lalchand Nandlal Jaiswal .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri M.S. Mohite with Ms Mallika A. Ingale for the Applicant. Ms P.H. Kantharia, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 24, 2010 P.C: The applicant seeks bail on the ground of parity. The applicant had been named in the FIR as one of the persons who had assaulted the first informant on the previous date, that is 11-2-2010. Again, because the first informant gave a report to the police, he was beaten up by the applicant and others on 12-2-2010. This report does not mention anything about the first informant's ornaments being stolen. The first informant had suffered a grievous injury and had been referred to Bhagwati Hospital for admission. On 17-2-2010 the first informant gave a supplementary statement in which he 2 CA-3638.10 stated about the assault by the present applicant by a wooden stick and also his being robbed of four gold chains and a Nokia mobile phone. One of the bracelets has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. Another bracelet was recovered at the instance of Anil Singh who has been admitted to bail. Therefore, on the ground of parity the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled to bail. He also submits that the role of the applicant was exaggerated and that the ornaments were in fact not at all identified. Ordinarily, the applicant would have been entitled to bail on the ground of parity. But here the applicant has filed on the record an affidavit of the complainant, which was filed in the Sessions Court, in which the complainant is alleged to have stated that the applicant had absolutely no role to play in the offence. This aspect was referred to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasai for an inquiry and the learned Magistrate reported that this affidavit was taken from the first informant by some misrepresentation. The learned APP states that there are four more cases pending against the applicant. Considering the fact that even while in jail, the applicant has tried to tamper with the 3 CA-3638.10 evidence, the applicant is not entitled to bail. The application is, therefore, rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)