Bail for serious offences requires judicial discretion based on the gravity of the act and evidence intensity. The doctrine of parity is not an absolute right and is secondary to the assessment of an individual's specific participation, criminal antecedents, and the prima facie strength of the prosecution's case.

ORDER :-

1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking regular bail in connection with FIR dated 10.12.2023 bearing Crime No. 392 of 2023 registered with Ramanand Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC” for short).

2. The prosecution case is that the incident occurred on 10.12.2023 at approximately 4:30 pm at Vanjari Tekdi, Samtangar, Jalgaon. The informant, a vegetable vendor, resides with his parents and two brothers, Kailas and Arun. The informant’s family had a history of disputes with accused Dodhya @ Pintya Shirsath and his associates. These tensions stemmed from Arun’s scheduled marriage to Rani Bhaskar Shirshat, niece of the accused Dodhya. Consequently, Dodhya had previously threatened to kill Arun, if he proceeded with the marriage.

3. On the date of incident i.e. on 10.12.2023 at approximately 12:00 pm, a quarrel broke out between the informant’s cousin, Ganesh Sonawane, and three individuals namely Nitin Sonawane, Akash Chavan, and Tushal Kalal. On the same day at around 4:30 pm, while the informant was sitting near Dr. Ambedkar Chowk Nala, his brother Arun and their friend Ashish Sonawane approached him. They informed informant that Sonu Adhale had asked them to Vanjari Tekdi to resolve the dispute occurred earlier that morning.

4. It is further alleged that shortly thereafter, the informant heard shouting coming from the direction of Vanjari Tekdi and rushed to the scene. Upon arrival, the informant saw accused perons, including the present applicant, assaulting Ashish Sonawane with choppers. The informant’s relatives intervened, managed to rescue Ashish and immediately shifted him to the hospital. The assailants then allegedly turned their attention toward the informant’s brother, Arun, attacking him with choppers and inflicting multiple injuries to his neck, abdomen, waist, and face. When the informant attempted to intervene, the accused Sonu and Dodhya, allegedly assaulted him with a chopper, injuring his right hand. Arun fell unconscious at the scene and was subsequently shifted to the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, where he was declared dead. Accordingly, the FIR came to be lodged on 10.12.2023 at 22.39 hours.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no specific overt act attributed to the applicant in the FIR. The applicant neither carried a lethal weapon nor inflicted any fatal injuries on the deceased Arun. Mere presence at the scene does not establish a shared common object for murder.

6. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that since the other accused persons namely Pravin @ Dodhya Premraj Sirsale and Ashok Mahadu Rathod who are similarly situated, have been enlarged on bail by this Court, same would entail the applicant to claim the bail on the ground of parity. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is also filed. As such, further incarceration of the applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application be allowed.

7. The learned APP opposed the application, submitting that the incident on 10.12.2023 was a calculated ambush rather than a sudden provocation. The accused lured the victims to Vanjari Tekdi under the pretext of a settlement, demonstrating a clear motive and common object to commit murder. The applicant’s presence at the scene, as identified in the FIR, confirms his active role in the offense.

8. The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has cited material witnesses. The applicant was part of a group armed with lethal weapons (choppers) and knife that his presence facilitated the necessary intimidation and support for the co-accused to execute the crime. Consequently, the applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused already released on bail, as the role of each participant must be assessed independently. Furthermore, there are criminal antecedents against the present applicant. As such, prayed for the rejection