JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2. This is an application for bail in connection with C.R. No.I-336 of 2016 dtd. 19/07/2016 registered with Narpoli Police Station, Thane for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short) read with Ss. 37(1)(A) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

3. An earlier application for bail filed by the applicant was rejected on 09/03/2018 by the Sessions Court. The order dtd. 09/03/2018 reads thus :-

": ORDER BELOW EXH.26 : 01] The accused - Raju Manika Yadav is chargesheeted for offence under Secs. 302, 143, 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code and S. 37(1)(A), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

02] I.O. filed say Exh.27 and strongly opposed the application.

03] I have heard Ld. Advocate for accused and Ld. APP. 04] Ld. Advocate for accused submitted that the deceased and the present accused had a partnership. The person alleged to be an eye witness is also their partner. Witnesses Pankaj and Mithun made different statements. They contradict one another. It is strongly contended that P.M. notes show that food was digested but the witness says that the deceased ha