1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3234 OF 2009 Jaidev Rama Gondhali .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.O.A.Siddiqui with Mr.C.V.Babar Desai with Ms.Shabana Shah for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State. Mr.Arjun H.Patil, for original complainant. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. (Chamber matter) DATED : 4th August, 2009. P.C. This is third successive bail application by the applicant accused No.16. The first application for bail was rejected by this Court during the May vacation vide order dated 15th May, 2009 by reasoned order and after hearing the rival parties for some time. Thereafter, second application was disposed of by this Court by order dated 8th July, 2009 mainly considering the fact that there was no any change circumstances 2 to again reconsider the matter and to take different view then the view earlier taken. 2. In the present matter apparently, the deceased had sustained 16 injuries and most of them were incised wounds. As per the post mortem report also injuries were termed as incised wounds and as per the medical evidence such injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like chopper. It appears that present applicant alongwith other co-accused was charged for murder which took played in a sort of rioting in the village where the rival groups reside. It is significant to note that section 149 of Indian Penal Code played much significance so far as holding the present applicant guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Today, the learned counsel Shri Babar Desai submitted that section 149 of Indian Penal Code cannot be taken shelter of in as much as the role given to the present applicant is that of holding the stick during the incident of assault and the injuries found on the body of the deceased were of incised wounds. In the opinion of this Court, such arguments cannot be sustained and even a person holding a stick could also be consider as one of the member of the unlawful assembly, if otherwise his presence is established by the material on record, as in the present case. 3 4. lastly, it is argued that similarly placed co-accused were released on bail by another Bench of this Court. In the opinion of this Court, in the matters of order on the bail applications, any precedent will not be of much significance and it would be the appreciation of the evidence and considering this, in the opinion of this Court, once earlier two bail applications have been rejected by this Court, there is nothing to again reappraise the material as against the present applicant so as to give a liberty of bail during the pendency of the trial. 5. In the result, the present application stands dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)