1609ba399.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 399 OF 2011 (Santosh Keshav Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Mr. M. P. Kariya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the non-applicant. CORAM : U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 16TH SEPT., 2011 Heard. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 20/6/2011 in Wardha Police Station, Crime No. 46/2010 registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has filed this application for bail. 2. The respondent-State has filed reply resisting the application. 3. It is seen that the present applicant had approached the learned Special Judge twice and both the times his application met the fate of dismissal. 4. It is seen that initially the son of deceased Jagdish Behkar had involved the present applicant and other two namely, Yogiraj Keshav Rathod and Keshav 1609ba399.11.odt 2/2 Maniram Rathod having played common role of assaulting his father with an axe. However, on the next day, the complainant Jagdish had given a detailed supplementary statement which reveals that the present applicant has main role of assault with axe on the deceased. 5. The post-mortem examination report reveals that the deceased had sustained chop wounds and incised wounds and other injuries and he died due to head injury. 6. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the other two co-accused have been released on bail by the learned Special Judge, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant is entitled for bail. 7. I do not agree with the above contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant on account of the supplementary statement of the complainant Jagdish Behkar. The charge-sheet has already been filed, however trial has not commenced and the main witness Jagdish is yet to be examined. In my view, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail, at this stage. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE wwl