1

cri.appel 74.21 (2).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.74 OF 2021

Pawan Raju Petewar,

Age : 28 years,

Occupation : Shop owner,

R/o : Ghatanji,

Taluka & District : Yavatmal.

... APPELLANT

(In Jail)

// V E R S U S //

1.The State of Maharashtra,

Through PSO of Police Station

Lohara, District : Yavatmal.

2.Akash Pundlik Wankhede,

Age : 25 years,

Occupation : nil,

R/o Netaji nagar,

District : Yavatmal.

... RESPONDENTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri Parvez. W. Mirza, Advocate for appellant.

Shri T. A. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -

State.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM: Z.A. HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 26/02/2021.

JUDGMENT : (PER

AMIT B. BORKAR, J.

)

1.

This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

challenging the order dated 11.1.2021 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Yavatmal below Ex.100 in Special Atrocity Case

No.29/2020, thereby rejecting successive bail application of the

appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147,

2

cri.appel 74.21 (2).odt

148, 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The First Information Report came to be registered against the

appellant and others with the accusations that the appellant alongwith

11 others was involved in murder of Vinay Khushal Rathod. It is

alleged that on 10.12.2012 around 4.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. near

Waghapur Lohapur bye-pass road, the appellant along with 10-12

other persons assaulted the victim and also assaulted the informant.

There was assault on the informant by the other accused. The

informant took the victim to the hospital but, was declared dead on

arrival and therefore, the report was lodged against the appellant and

other 11 accused. The appellant came to be arrested on 12.12.2019.

On 25.2.2020, the appellant filed an application under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 27.4.2020 the said application was

rejected. Thereafter, on 20.5.2020 the appellant moved temporary bail

application. On 10.6.2020 said application was also rejected. Another

temporary bail application filed by the appellant was also rejected.

On 25.2.2020, the appellant filed second application under Section

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second regular bail

application filed by the appellant was rejected on 14.8.2020 on merits.

The appeal filed before this Court against the said order bearing LDVC

Criminal Appeal No.85/2020 was withdrawn unconditionally on

23.6.2020.

3

cri.appel 74.21 (2).odt

3.

On 9.12.2020, the appellant had filed third regular bail

application mainly on the ground that co-accused Rahul Patil has been

released by this Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the

appellant deserves to be released on bail. By the impugned order dated

11.1.2021 the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected third bail

application of the appellant on the ground that the role of Rahul Patil

released on bail by this Court was different than the present appellant.

4.

The appellant has, therefore, filed present appeal seeking

his release on bail claiming parity with co-accused Rahul Patil.

5.

Shri Parvez Mirza, learned Advocate for the appellant

submitted that successive bail applications on behalf of the accused are

maintainable, if there is change in circumstance. He submitted that

release of the co-accused is change in circumstance and, therefore, the

appellant deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. In

support of his submissions, he relied on the judgments of the Apex

Court in the case Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu

Yadav and another reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42 and Babu Singh Vs.

State of UP reported in (1978) 1 SCC 579.

6.

Shri T.A.