SIDDIQUE @ SULEMAN MOHAMAD KHAN Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri M. Kawchale, learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) It has been the contention of Shri Kawchale, learned Advocate that the bail application of the co-accused was granted vide the order dated 13/07/2016 and wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge had made clear observations that there was no conclusive material against the said accused even to convict them. On that premise the learned Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail to the said three accused. The present applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail on grounds of parity. Besides in his contention there was no other adequate material on record to link the applicant with the crime alleged against him and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of bail. Moreover, the chargesheet was filed against the other accused sometime in the year 2014 while it was filed against the applicant in the year 2018 since he was not traceable.

(3.) Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor invited attention to the statement of the Advocate then appearing for the applicant. According to him he had given graphic details of the incident and that the material in his statement was adequate to point out to the complicity of the applicant and therefore no bail ought to be granted.