1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5680 of 2009 Pradeep Rajiv Shingade & Anr ... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mrs.V.R.Raje i/b Prakash Naik for the applicants. Mr.S.N.Gawade APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 13th January 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, applicants seek bail in connection with C.R.No. I-47/2009 registered at Talasari police station, Dist.Thane. The alleged offence is punishable u/s.302, 147, 148, 149 and 336 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on account of elections, there was enmity between Anil Shingade (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) and a group of persons including the present applicants. On 23rd May 2009, the applicants assaulted the deceased with wooden 2 rods. The brother and mother of the deceased went to the rescue when the brother Vithal was also beaten up. Thereafter the assailants went away. The deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment. However, he died in a couple of hours. 4. The crime was witnessed by the brother and mother of the deceased who are the eye witnesses. There are other eye witnesses also. In my view, there is a prima facie material implicating atleast the applicant no.1 – Pradeep Ravji Shingade. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that at the relevant date, the applicant no.1 was attending his duty in a general shift in Presion Plastics Co. Ltd. whose certificate of attendance is produced. Counsel submitted that applicant no.1 was on duty and could not be present on the spot and he has been falsely implicated. There are more than one eye witnesses who have seen the applicant assaulting the deceased. The defence of alibi of the applicant no.1 would therefore be required to be considered only at the stage of trial and at the prima facie stage, I am not inclined to grant bail on that basis. 6. The brother of deceased who is an eye witness stated about the role played by the applicant no.1. The applicant no.1 assaulted the deceased with wooden rod along with others. However, so far as applicant no.2 Jayram Jethu Dhodade is concerned, the complainant has not stated anything about any assault by him. He has only stated that applicant no.2 assaulted the complainant (brother of the deceased). 3 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that two other accused viz. Urmila and Lusi have been granted bail and therefore applicants may be granted bail on parity. The case of Urmila and Lusi is similar to the applicant no.2 and on the basis of parity the applicant no.2 (Jairam) would be entitled to bail. The role played by the applicant no.1 is however different and the ground of parity would not apply to him. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R Application by applicant no.1 Pradeep Shingade for bail is rejected. Applicant no.2 is however granted bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of like amount subject to a condition that applicant shall report to the concerned police station once a month between 1st and 5th day of every British Calendar month till the disposal of the trial. In case of breach of the condition, bail shall be liable to be cancelled forthwith. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)