1appln-2169-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2169 of 2010 Anil Kacharu Gondhali vs. State of Maharashtra. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr Parvez Ubharaj, for the Applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 5TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant for his release on bail during the pendency of the trial for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 328, 408, 507 and also offence of rioting and mainly u/s 149 of I.P.C. 2. Allegedly, present applicant and other co-accused, total about 36 in number, assaulted the deceased and the witnesses on some quarrel about playing cricket on the same ground by two groups. In fact, there was some previous enmity between two groups on account of stealing of the cattle of the deceased. During such rioting various arms like swords, wooden sticks, sickles, cricket stumps and 2appln-2169-10 axe etc were used. The deceased was severely beaten and he died on the spot. During the arguments learned Advocate for the applicant prayed for parity on the ground that another co-accused by name Sandip Shantaram Patil was released on bail by another Bench of this Court and role attributed to the said Sandip and also to the present applicant is same as to holding stick in hand, assaulting the deceased and others by means of such stick. 3. On the contrary, on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, learned A.P.P. submitted that case of the present applicant is required to be viewed differently inasmuch as he was not available to the police and was in fact absconding for more than 14 months and as such this is a grave incriminating circumstance against the applicant which disentitles him to claim parity. 4. Needless to mention that in the present matter there is application of section 149 of I.P.C. and as such whether or not a person holding any dangerous weapon like sword or axe, he is equally responsible for the final result of the act i.e. murder of the deceased Gurunath when every co-accused were armed with such deadly weapons and positive role is given to the present applicant by way of overt-act as to assault with the help of the stick still being the member of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. 5. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that present applicant is a student of M.Sc and as such his case may be favourably considered so far as grant of bail. Considering the above submissions, the application of section 149 of I.P.C. and considering the admitted position as to 3appln-2169-10 14 months the applicant was evading his arrest, it would not be in the fitness of situation to release him on bail when the matter is in fact for framing of the charge and for trial as charge sheet has already been filed. In the result, present application is disposed of with following order. ORDER (a) Criminal Application No.2169/2010 is hereby rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merit of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J)