1 appa 102 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1070 OF 2009 Suresh Bhaurao Shinde and anr .. Applicants. -versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mrs. Pooja Bhojane, for the Applicant. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 29th July, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for bail by convicts Suresh Bhaurao Shinde and Dashrath Bapu Shinde, who have been sentenced by the learned Special Judge, M.C.O.C. Act, Mumbai, to suffer R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 457, 397; and R.I. for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. They have been acquitted for the offence punishable under 3)1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of M. C. O. C. Act and Section 4, 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Kalyan @ Dalya Shiva Shinde , has been admitted to bail by this Court, by order dated 7th December, 2010, in 2 appa 102 of 2011 Criminal Application NO.1239 of 2009. She submitted that the applicants have completed five years sentence out of their 10 years and the appeal is not likely to be heard soon. She further submits that no role had been ascribed to the applicants when they were identified at the test identification parade. She points out that P.W.1 Ranjit Naik had not at all identified the applicant Suresh Bhaurao Shinde either at the test identification parade or before the Court and therefore, submits that the applicants may be admitted to bail. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits first that both the applicants were identified at the test identification parade. She submits that from both the applicants, recovery or articles have been made and those articles have been duly identified by the witnesses as those belonging to the witnesses. Therefore, according to her there is no question of applicants granting bail on parity with Kalyan @ Dalya Shiva Shinde, who has been admitted to bail, because he had not been identified and no recovery was made at his instance. 4. As far as no role being ascribed to the applicants, though they were identified at the test identification parade, this was lapse on the part of the Officer, conducting parade. In any case all this would have to be taken into consideration when the appeal is heard on merits. As the applicants are in 3 appa 102 of 2011 jail for five years out of 10 years of sentence, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. In view of this application for bail is rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)