Judgment :- Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for the State. 2. I have also heard Shri S.T. Desai, PI, V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai (Investigating Officer), who is present in the court. 3. The applicant and the co-accused one Rakesh Singh are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. The allegation against them is that they assaulted one Indramohan Jha, a Security Guard, working in the building, where the accused persons reside. 4. Mr. Kulkarni, submitted that so far, the medical opinion on the cause of death is not available. He submitted that according to his information, the opinion in that regard has been reserved. He submitted that no injuries were noticed on the dead body and that though the said Indramohan Jha died on 8th March, the FIR came to be lodged only on 20th March, 2012. 5. Indeed there is no medical opinion available about the cause of death and the same has been reserved. Indeed the inquest panchnama does not show any marks or injuries on the dead body except some abrasions. 6. What is however significant is that the co-accused has already been released on bail by this court (Bail Application No.572 of 2012 decided on 30th April, 2012), (Coram:-R.Y. Ganoo, J.). 7. I have gone through the said order. While dealing with the said bail application, this court observed that the use of the cricket bat by the said co-accused Rakesh Singh was rendered doubtful as some of the eye-witnesses had not attributed that role to him. 8. I find that though some of the persons claiming to be the eye-witnesses have given a role of assaulting the deceased by a cricket bat to the present applicant, some others, had attributed the same role to the co-accused also. 9. Mr. Kulkarni pointed out that the cricket bat has been allegedly recovered at the instance of the co-accused and not at the instance of the present applicant. 10. Under any circumstances, therefore, the case of the applicant need not be treated in a drastically different manner from that of the co-accused. He should also be released on bail similarly. 11. The application is allowed. 12. 10. Under any circumstances, therefore, the case of the applicant need not be treated in a drastically different manner from that of the co-accused. He should also be released on bail similarly. 11. The application is allowed. 12. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, with one surety in the like amount on the condition that he shall report to the concerned police station on every Monday and every Thursday between 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. till the filing of the charge-sheet. 13. All concerned to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.