Junaid Nasir Shaikh v. State Of Maharashtra

(29) - ba-974-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.974 OF 2024 Junaid Nasir Shaikh ...

Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Aditya Parmar, with Savvy Kolhekar, for the applicant. Ms. Geeta Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent/State. ---------------------

CORAM

:

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATE :

18TH JULY 2024.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2024.07.18 19:17:55 +0530 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD PC:

1.

Heard.

2.

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.1058 of 2020, registered with Kondwa Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'IPC'), Section 4/25 of Arms Act, and Section 37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant seeking bail on the ground that the bloodstained clothes were recovered from the open varsha

(29) - ba-974-2024.doc space and therefore, such evidence is not reliable. He further submits that there is no progress in the trial. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail from last four years. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail.

4.

Having considered the charge-sheet and the material collected by the IO during the investigation, it is evident that there is sufficient material available on record against the applicant. Bloodstains clothes were recovered from the applicant and there are dying declarations given by the deceased to the witnesses. 5.

Thus, considering the seriousness of the offence and the material collected by the IO during the investigation, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6.

The learned counsel for the applicant points out that the co-accused has been released on bail. However, considering the role of the co-accused who has been released on bail, it cannot be said that the role of the applicant and the said co-accused is similar. 7.

In that view of the matter, principles of parity will not apply to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (ANIL S. KILOR, J) varsha