1 BA-922.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.922 OF 2011 {For Bail} Lalsingh @ Chandan Solanki .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Harshad Sathe with H.V. Anand for the Applicant. Ms A.A. Mane, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 P.C: This is an application for bail by a person who has been arrested and charge-sheeted for participation in a dacoity. The learned counsel for the applicant is right in submitting that the learned trial Judge seems to have bailed out an accused person who is residing in the State of Gujarat but has refused to release the applicant who is residing permanently at Aurangabad. But the learned counsel seems to have missed the fact that in the FIR the first informant had stated about the theft of a Nokia 1680 mobile phone bearing IMEI No.355211033484480. The mobile 2 BA-922.11 phone was seized from the applicant at the time of the applicant's arrest and as has the same IMEI number and is of the same make. As far as the Motorola mobile phone is concerned, which was allegedly seized from the co-accused, there is no IMEI number mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, there is no question of parity. True, the applicant is in jail for some time and though the trial was expedited it has not taken of. But that in itself cannot be a ground for admitting the applicant to bail. Considering the fact that specifically identifiable stolen property mentioned in the FIR has been recovered from the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to bail. The application is rejected. The learned trial Judge would expedite the hearing of the case and once the hearing starts, would complete it in one go. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)