KBP 1 7.cri.wp.1278-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1278 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.842 OF 2005 Shashikant Ankush Salgar .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent -- Mr.V.S.Talkute, for applicant. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for respondent State. -- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 16 th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C.: This application is filed for grant of bail to the applicant. The only submission canvassed before us is that inspite of peremptory order passed by the Court on 3 rd March, 2011 to include the Appeal for hearing at appropriate place in the final hearing list, the Appeal has not seen the light of the day till now. According to the applicant, it is unlikely that the Appeal will be taken up for hearing in the near KBP 2 7.cri.wp.1278-11.odt future. This is the sole ground on which prayer for bail is based. The attention of the Counsel for the applicant was invited to the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2010)3 SCC (Cri.) 299 : (2009) 16 SCC 370 and (2010) 6 SCC 417, wherein it is held that merely because the Court is unable to hear the Appeal immediately, it can be no ground to release the convict on bail. To get over this position, the counsel for the applicant submits that the consistent view of the Apex Court is to grant bail if the Appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future. We are bound by the latest judgments of the Apex Court referred above. 2] As a matter of fact, the contention pressed into service by the applicant that the Appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future will have to be stated to be rejected. Indeed, the Appeal has not been formally included in the final hearing list so far. However, now, special assignment has been given to this Bench to hear the Appeals of the convicts in jail pertaining to year 2005 only. In order dated 19 th September, 2011, this Court had occasion to advert to this aspect and this Court opined that precedence cannot be given to the Appeal filed by the applicant herein, as his Appeal will have to proceed as per the KBP 3 7.cri.wp.1278-11.odt chronology of matters pertaining to year 2005. In other words, the only ground on which the request for grant of bail is pressed into service, cannot be entertained. Realising this position, counsel for the applicant submits that in that case, the Appeal be fixed for hearing on specific date. In view of the above, this plea is already rejected. The application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed. 3] The counsel for the applicant submits that in that case, the applicant will withdraw the application. In the circumstances, the Criminal Application is disposed of as not pressed. 4] We place on record that the office shall process the Criminal Appeal No.842 of 2005 as per its turn under appropriate category, if ready in all respects. 5] At this stage, counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant be given liberty to revive his prayer for early hearing or grant of bail, as the case may be, after some time. We fail to understand how such liberty can be given as this Court has already KBP 4 7.cri.wp.1278-11.odt observed that the applicant/appellant will have to wait for its turn and cannot get precedence over other Appeals of year 2005. Hence, this request is rejected. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.]