SUDHIR RANGRAO KHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) This is a second application for bail filed by the applicant who was arrested on 29th April, 2005 for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. His earlier application was rejected by this Court by order dated 15th February, 2006.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that other accused has been released on bail by this Court by order dated 28th July, 2006. He has submitted that the allegations that the material which is available with the prosecution in respect of the other co-accused Faiyaz Ahmed Mohammed Umar Shaikh and the present applicant is identical. The learned Counsel submitted that however, this Court (Coram : R.S. Mohite, J.) by order dated 28th July, 2006 was pleased to grant bail to the other co-accused. The learned Senior Counsel, Shri Mundargi, therefore, submitted that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He submitted that this is a change in the circumstance and therefore, he has filed this criminal application for bail. He invited my attention to the order passed in the application filed by the co-accused Faiyaz Shaikh. He submitted that initially the applicant was shown as a witness in the present case and he had identified the assailant. However, subsequently investigation was transferred to the CID and therefore, the persons who are initially shown as accused were discharged and present applicant and others were shown as accused. He submitted that there is inherent contradiction in the prosecution case and at this stage, the applicant was entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the writ petition was pending in this court against the order of discharge by the trial court. He submitted that in any event, the decision in the said writ petition one way or the other would still not inconsistent with the prosecution case. He submitted that therefore, the applicant was entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that since the said writ petition was pending in this Court, the trial was not likely to commence in the near future.