The court rejected a bail application, ruling that applicants cannot claim parity for release simply because two female co-accused were already granted bail, noting their role was less serious.
Application rejected; bail not granted to applicants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BA-379-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.379 OF 2012
BRAHMADEV RAMA METKARI & ORS. )...APPLICANTS V/S. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms.R.M.Gadhvi APP for the State.
CORAM: A.M.THIPSAY DATE : 18th APRIL, 2012.
P.C. :
Heard.
I have gone through the First Information Report (FIR) and glanced through the statements recorded during investigation. I have also gone through the Memorandum of postmortem examination.
A prima facie case exists against the applicants.
Undoubtedly, two other accused in this case have been released on bail. However, the said accused, who both were women, were not attributed as serious a role, as has been attributed to the
avk 1/2
BA-379-2012
present applicants. Therefore, simply because they have been released on bail, these applicants cannot claim parity and seek release on bail, on that ground.
The application is rejected.
(A.M.THIPSAY, J.)
avk 2/2
1 issue framed by the court
whether the applicants are entitled to release on bail given that other female accused were released.
BRAHMADEV RAMA METKARI
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A.M.THIPSAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
