1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.123/2011 (Nitin Babarao Thool .vrs State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Ms. S.V. Taksande, Advocate for applicant, Mr. D.P. Thakre, APP for non-applicant. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : MARCH 17, 2011 Heard. The learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the prayer for bail made by the applicant charge sheeted by Wadner Police Station, Distt. Wardha as a result of investigation of Crime No.76/2010 registered for commission of offences under Sections 376(1)(g), 341 342 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that one of the co-accused Sandeep Waghmare also charge sheeted by the said police station, has been granted bail by the trial court vide order dated 25.11.2010. It is urged that the case of the applicant is on par with the said accused and as such he should be given similar benefit. Additionally, it is urged that in meanwhile the applicant was granted temporary bail by the trial court for 15 days for appearing for the examination. It is urged that no misuse of the said 2 liberty has been reported is also a circumstance for considering prayer for bail with favour. The prayer for bail is objected by the learned APP on the ground of the case of the applicant being not on par with the said co-accused, who is released by the trial court and the involvement of the applicant is squarely borne from the material contained in the first information report lodged after 10 hours after occurrence of the incident and other material in statements of the other witnesses regarding conduct of first informant-victim. It is urged that the applicant was bound to abide by the conditions imposed while granting temporary bail and having not misused the same cannot be said to be a circumstance supporting his prayer for bail. The perusal of the case diary and so also the order shown by the learned counsel for the applicant releasing the co-accused on bail reveals that co-accused was given the benefit by the trial court in view of his name being not found in the first information report and there being possibility of his false implication. The same also reveals prima facie justification in submission canvassed by the learned APP regarding material against applicant. Having regard to the said features, the case of the applicant cannot be said to be on par with the said co-accused. The involvement of the applicant is prima facie borne from the material in the charge sheet in an offences which is punishable with imprisonment for life. Having regard to the same and considering the manner in which the incident had occurred, discretion does not 3 deserve to be exercised in favour of grant of bail to the applicant. The application stands rejected. JUDGE Gulande