.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1682 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.S.C. Halli for the applicant. Mr.Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This is second application for bail at the instance of the present applicant-accused. 3. The applicant is charged with an offence of murder of Abu Shaikh punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court (myself) by an order dated 22nd February 2008 passed in Criminal Application no.358 of 2008 for the reasons stated therein and - 2 - it is not necessary to repeat them here. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that subsequent to the order dated 22nd February 2008 passed by me, the co-accused Arjun Shankar Shelke has been granted bail by this Court by an order dated 24th April 2008 passed in Criminal Application No.473 of 2008. He submitted that the case of the applicant is not different from the case of the co-accused Shelke and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 5. I have perused the order dated 24th April 2008 granting bail to Shelke. The reason mentioned in the order granting bail to Shelke is that the name of Shelke was not mentioned in the F.I.R. dated 29th October 2007 and his name was added for the first time in the statement recorded four days after the F.I.R. Secondly, the Court held that Shelke was known to the complainant and, therefore, there was no reason why his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. - 3 - 6. In my view, the case of the applicant is different from that of Shelke. Admittedly, the deceased had gone to the house of the present applicant and within a short time thereafter he was murdered. Presence of Shelke at the house of the applicant, prima facie, is not established. Secondly, the chemical analyser’s report shows blood stains on the clothes of the present applicant, while the clothes of Shelke did not show presence of any blood stains. Thirdly, the sword used for the offence was discovered at the instance of the present applicant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. 7. These three circumstances differentiate the case of the present applicant from the co-accused Shelke. No other ground for bail was argued. Hence, the applicant cannot be granted bail on the ground of parity. 8. For these reasons, the application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)