..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1179 OF 2008 Dipak Arun Shinde. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil, Adv. for Prashant S. Hagare, Adv. for applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th 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.110 of 2006 of Baramati City police station. The said case is under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. 3. The applicant had earlier preferred an application for bail before this Court which came to be rejected by me by passing a detailed order dated 3rd May, 2007. ..(2).. 4. The present application for bail has been preferred on the ground that there are changed circumstances that coaccused Ganesh Chavan and Sunil Chavan came to be granted bail by this Court and the role of the applicant is the same as that of Ganesh Chavan and Sunil Chavan. I have perused the order whereby Ganesh Chavan and Sunil Chavan came to be granted bail. In the said order, it is specifically stated that the witnesses have not attributed any weapons to those accused hence bail came to be granted. However, the witnesses have stated that the present applicant was armed with stick. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is any case of parity. No other fresh circumstance has been pointed out. Looking to the above facts, 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.)