Ganesh @ Gajraj Sainath Patil v. State Of Maharashtra

970-ba-3069-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3069 OF 2024 Ganesh @ Gajraj Sainath Patil ...

Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Umesh Pawar, for the applicant.

Ms. Ashwini Takalkar, APP, for the Respondent / State. Mr. Arun Sadashiv Kanade, PSI, Islampur Police Station, Present.

CORAM

:

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2024.10.08 19:12:01 +0530 DATE :

8TH OCTOBER, 2024.

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.362 of 2023, registered with Islampur Police Station, Sangli, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act. 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant is seeking bail on merit as well as on parity. As far as the parity is concerned, it is submitted that the co-accused Saurabh Patil was granted bail by the trial Court. After going through the order of the trial Court dated 30.07.2024, I am of the opinion that in such a serious matter and varsha

970-ba-3069-2024.doc where the eyewitnesses are there, on irrelevant factors, the bail was granted and therefore, I do not find that the principles of parity would apply to the present case.

4.

As far as the merit is concerned in the FIR a specific role is attributed to the applicant and it is evident that the applicant was holding sickle and he wielded blow on the deceased. 5.

The learned counsel for the applicant, however, points out that after two days the informant change this version and attributed the main role to Saurabh Patil. He further points out that similarly the other witnesses also attributed the role to the co-accused, Saurabh Patil. However, the statement of other witnesses were recorded after more than 10 days.

6.

In addition to this, there are 13 antecedents against the applicant and all the offences are bodily offences. Thus, there is every possibility that if the applicant is released on bail he may commit the similar offence. In that view of the matter and as there is sufficient incriminating material and evidence available against the applicant, I am not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (ANIL S. KILOR, J) varsha