..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1892 OF 2008 Rajesh Bansi Waghela. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.A.R.Pandey, Adv. for applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-93 of 2007 of Vasai Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 394 of IPC. 3. The complainant has stated that when he was near Virar Railway Station, he was assaulted by the applicant and some coaccused by means of stick, stone and kick blows and the complainant came to be robbed of his mobile and cash. The material on record shows that the applicant was chased and caught by the public and the mobile ..(2).. phone of the complainant was seized from the possession of the applicant. The said mobile phone has been identified by the complainant. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that coaccused Suresh Ghodkiya has been granted bail by this Court and the case of the applicant is the same as that of Suresh Ghodkiya. It cannot be said that the case of the applicant is the same as that of coaccused Suresh Ghodkiya because nothing has been seized from the possession of coaccused Suresh Ghodkiya, whereas in the case of applicant, mobile phone of the complainant came to be seized from his possession and the complainant has identified the said mobile phone. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any case of parity. Looking to the material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)