1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4346 OF 2009 1. Kisan s/o Somala Rathod 2 Gajanan s/o Pandurang Rathod ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Mr. M.V. Ghatge, advocate for the applicants Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. (VACATION COURT) DATED: 24TH DECEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This application is for regular bail in connection with crime No.74 of 2009, registered with Mahur police station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341 of I.P.C. and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. 3 Pursuant to registration of crime, the applicants came to be 2 arrested. They had filed application for regular bail before the Additional Sessions Judge Nanded. The said application came to be rejected on 21.11.2009. Hence, this application. 4 This Court, by order dated 16.12.2009, issued notice to the respondent. Pursuance to the said notice, investigation papers are made available for perusal of this Court. 5 Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the main assailants are Madhukar and Kailas and the present applicants reached to the spot of the incident afterwards and they did not share any common intention. It is further submitted that no particular overt act is attributed to the applicants and the applicants are named due to political rivalry. There was no premeditation attack. All male members of the family of the applicants are falsely implicated in the offence in question. He invited my attention to the statement of eye witness viz. Subhash Rathod and submitted that the applicants did not share any common intention and the applicants have reached to the spot of offence at later stage. It is further submitted that one of the co- accused viz. Dharma Rathod has been granted bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicants may be granted bail. It is further submitted that there is no criminal antecedents. The alleged recovery is of only stick, which is household article. He further submitted that death occurred due to head injury and the allegations against the 3 present applicants are they used stick. It is further submitted that the applicants own immovable property and therefore, there is no question by absconding and they will be available for trial, if released on bail. He further submitted that since the charge sheet is already filed and investigation is complete, looking to the role attributed to the applicants, at the most the case may fall under Section 304 or 326 of I.P.C. and therefore, they may be granted bail. 6 Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.P.P. for the state, I have perused the investigation papers made available by learned A.P.P. On perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that there are number of eye witnesses to the incident in question viz. Arvind Atmaram Harkare, Dattarao Govindrao Hulkane, Sudarshan Marotrao Alat, Subhash Maniram Rathod, Arvind Sambhaji Suroshe so also other eye witnesses. There is recovery of stick from the present applicants. The injuries are sustained by the deceased were not only on the head but also on the face and chest. The clothes of the applicants are recovered and they are sent for Chemical Analyzer's report. On careful perusal of the investigation papers made available to this Court, it clearly appears that the applicants accused were sharing common intention with the other accused persons. Even for a moment, it is assumed that the applicants have not assaulted the deceased, their presence at the spot of incident is stated by number of witnesses. The case in hand is not 4 only under Section 302 of I.P.C. but there are other Sections i.e. 143, 147, 148, 149 etc. By this time, it is well settled that each member of unlawful assembly in commission of offence is equally responsible for the said crime, irrespective of role played by him. 7. In the aforesaid circumstance, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to grant bail. Hence, application for bail is rejected. *****