..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1366 OF 2008 Shri.Mangesh Dnyaneshwar Waluj. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Aabad H.H. Ponda, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R No.124 of 2007 Wadgaon Maval Police Station. The said case is under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. The role attributed to the present applicant is that he and other accused assaulted Bharat Shinde with sharp-edged weapons. Twenty five injuries were found on the body of Bharat Shinde. The injuries are consistent with the sharp-edged weapons. Mr.Ponda submitted that coaccused Salman Shaikh was granted bail by the ..(2).. Sessions Court and the case of the applicant is the same as that of Salman Shaikh. On perusal of the order whereby Salman Shaikh came to be granted bail, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has observed that, "the statements of eye witnesses shows that Banti @ Mangesh Walunj and Mangesh Maruti Rane actually inflicted chopper blows on the person of Bharat Shinde and this Salman Khan had caught hold Bharat Shinde". The learned Sessions Judge has further observed that "role attributed to this applicant No.3 is lesser than the accused Nos.1 and 2." Hence bail came to be granted to the coaccused Salman Shaikh. Mr.Ponda pointed out that in the FIR the complainant has assigned the very same role as that of the applicant to coaccused Salman Shaikh. However, in the further statement the complainant Dattatraya has stated that while the present applicant was assaulting Bharat Shinde at that time coaccused Salman Shaikh caught hold of Bharat Shinde. Mr.Ponda submitted that if there is change in his version in the FIR and his version in the further statement, the FIR of the complainant cannot be relied upon. ..(3).. 4. As far as the applicant is concerned, there is no inconsistency in both the FIR as well as the further statement of the complainant and the role attributed to him is assault by sharp-edged weapons on Bharat Shinde. Looking to the role attributed to the applicant and the post-mortem notes, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)