JUDGMENT Heard the Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Applicant in Criminal Application No. 482 of 2012, Learned APP for the State and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1353 of 2012. 2. Criminal Application No. 482 of 2012 is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the Accused No.3. The Applicant/Accused No. 3 alongwith other Accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147/149, 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant has invited our attention to the orders passed by this Court under which the Accused Nos. 5 to 14 have been enlarged on bail. He submitted that out of two eye witnesses, whose evidence has been relied by the trial Court, P.W. 3 has not specifically deposed about the presence of the Applicant. He pointed out that P.W.1 has stated that the Applicant assaulted the deceased with a stick. He stated that same role has been attributed by P. W. 1 to the other accused, save and except Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. He pointed out that the prosecution has relied upon another circumstance namely, recovery of bloodstained clothes on person of the Applicant on which there were blood-stains of blood group B. He submitted that apart from the fact that the panch witness has not identified the Applicant in the court, the panchanama as well as evidence of the panch witness are silent about the sealing of the clothes after seizure. Therefore, he submitted that no distinction can be made between the Applicant and the other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. 4. The Learned APP pointed out that P. W. 8 Investigating Officer has stated that the clothes were sealed and labelled. He pointed out that the reports of the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories on record shows that the blood group of the Applicant is A and blood group of the deceased was B. He pointed out that the reports also show that the blood stains found on the clothes on the person of the Applicant were of B group. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant in Criminal Application No. 1353 of 2012 supported the submission of the Learned APP. 6. We have considered the submissions. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant in Criminal Application No. 1353 of 2012 supported the submission of the Learned APP. 6. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the relevant part of the evidence and orders passed by this Court granting bail to the co-accused. We have perused the Order dated 5th October, 2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 1126 of 2011 under which the Accused Nos. 10, 11 and 14 were enlarged on bail. In paragraph-3 of the said order, submission noted by this Court is that P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 have not specifically named the said Accused and after naming first four accused, a general statement is made that all the accused assaulted deceased with sticks, swords and sickle. The second submission noted is that there is no recovery at the instance of the Applicants. One more submission which is noted is that there is no recovery of bloodstained clothes. In paragraph-6 of the Order granting bail, this Court has expressed prima facie opinion that presence of the Applicants was not conclusively established by the prosecution. Consequently, this Court has made prima facie observation based on evidence of P.W 1 that there is doubt created about his presence at the site. As far as Criminal Application No. 1387 of 2011 is concerned, the co-accused were released under the Order dated 20th December, 2011. This Court has observed that P.W.1 and 3 whose evidence has been relied upon have not attributed any overt act to the Applicant before it. 7. In the present case, we find from the evidence of P.W.1 that he has specifically named the first four accused in the examination in chief. After stating that the present Applicant assaulted the deceased Rajesh by stick, he has made a general statement that the other accused were armed with sticks, swords and sickles and they assaulted deceased by means of swords, sticks and sickles. It is pertinent to note that the conviction of the Applicant is also for the offence punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. As far as present Applicant is concerned, there is a distinguishing feature namely, that P. W.1 has specifical1y attributed an overt act to the Applicant. It is pertinent to note that the conviction of the Applicant is also for the offence punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. As far as present Applicant is concerned, there is a distinguishing feature namely, that P. W.1 has specifical1y attributed an overt act to the Applicant. Apart from this, on the clothes appearing on the person of the Applicant which were seized immediately after the incident, blood stains of blood group B were found, which appears to be the blood group of deceased. Moreover, the blood group of the Applicant is not B. A submission is made that there is no evidence to show that the clothes were sealed after the seizure. At this stage, we cannot enter into the area of re-appreciation of evidence. Suffice it to say that P.W 8, the Investigating Officer has stated that the clothes were sealed and labelled. 8. In the circumstances, the Applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail by reason of parity. Apart from this, we have already observed that conviction of the Applicant is also for the offence punishable under Section 149 of the I.P.C. and P.W.1 has attributed specific role to the Applicant. Hence, no case is made out to enlarge the Applicant Bhalchandra Madhavi on bail. The Criminal Application No. 482 of 2012 is rejected. 9. Criminal Application No. 1353 of 2012 does not survive. The same is also disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.