/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 979 OF 2008 Ravikumar Anjayya Magipalli ...Appellant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent --- Niranjan Mundargi for Appellant Mr. D.P. Adsule PP for Respondent ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER,2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. This is a second application for bail filed by the Applicant herein. The first application of the Applicant was rejected on 24.3.2008. 2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that more than six months have been passed, after the said order was passed by this Court and secondly, one of the co-accused has been released on bail subsequently by an order dated 10th April, 2008. He, therefore, submits that the Applicant be also released on bail. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant. In the first application, the Learned Single Judge has decided the application on merits and has given reasons why it is / 2 / not possible to release the Applicant on bail. 3. The Applicant cannot claim a parity on the ground that the co- accused being released on bail. The co-accused was not identified by any of the prosecution witness during identification parade. Wherein in the present case, the Applicant has been identified by the Complainant, his partner and also by an independent witness. The Applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 387 r.w sections 34, 120B and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. No case is made out for grant of bail. Application is rejected. Application is accordingly disposed of. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. V.M. KANADE J.