1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5316 OF 2009 Rajesh Tulsidas Belani .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel, along with Mr S.V.Kotwal, for the applicant. Mr S.A.Shaikh, APP, for the respondent-State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 15/01/2010. PC: 1. Heard Mr Shirish Gupte, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr Shaikh, learned APP, for the respondent-State. 2. This is the second application for bail. The earlier application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 22.6.2009 on merits. 3. Mr Gupte, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, prays for bail on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that when the earlier application of the applicant was rejected, the order dated 18.5.09 releasing another accused on bail, viz Hafees Mohd Ali T 2 Baloch passed by the Sessions Court, was not brought to the notice of this court and, secondly he submitted that the applicant is entitled for bail on parity with the said accused, (Hafees Mohd Ali Baloch). I have perused the earlier criminal application. It is true that reference to the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 18.5.2009 was not made therein and, obviously, because the earlier application was filed before the order dated 18.5.2009 was passed. Insofar as the second submission of Mr Gupte is concerned, the learned APP fairly submitted that there is absolutely no difference between the role attributed and allegedly played by the co-accused-Hafees Mohd Ali Baloch and the present applicant. From perusal of the record, it is clear that none of the witnesses, including the complainant, has named either the present applicant or Hafees Mohd Ali Baloch. However, they were not identified in the test identification parade either by the complainant or by the other eye-witnesses. Insofar as the wife of the deceased, viz. Tabassum, is concerned, she identified both, i.e. Hafees Mohd Ali Baloch and the present applicant, as the persons who were present at the time of the alleged occurrence. However, in her statement under section 161 she did not name either of them as assailants. It further appears that though the present applicant was known to the wife of the deceased Tabassum, she did not 3 either name him in her statement/supplementary statement under section 161 or had attributed any role during the test identification parade. In the memorandum of identification parade she had simply stated that the present applicant and even Hafees Mohd Ali Baloch were present at the time of incident. Though the earlier application was rejected on 22.6.2009, the order enlarging Hafees Mohd Ali Baloch on bail dated 18.5.2009 was not brought to the notice of this court. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the learned APP could not and did not dispute the submission of Mr Gupte, learned senior counsel, that the applicant is entitled for bail on parity with Hafees Mohd Ali Baloch, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the following order. Applicant-Rajesh Tulsidas Belani is directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every alternate Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm for a period of six months. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 4