1 252.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.252 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.745 OF 2009 Madhu Dharmji Ovhal ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mr.Daulat G.Khamkar for Applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 23, 2011. P.C. 1. The argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that the earlier bail application being Criminal Application No.617 of 2010 has not been dismissed on merits. Instead, the Court thought that the appeal itself can proceed for hearing in the week commencing from 10th January, 2011. Incidentally, one of us (Justice A.R.Joshi) was party to the said order dated 23rd September, 2010. Even otherwise, on plain reading of the said order, it is not possible to accept the argument of the applicant that the bail application has not been rejected on merits. In other words, the present application is second bail application by the applicant. We find no changed 2 252.11 circumstance to entertain such successive bail application. Insofar as the grievance that the appeal has not been listed for hearing in the week commencing from 10th January, 2011, the same clearly overlooks that the present assignment gives precedence to all the cases falling under category convicts in jail. In other words, all the appeals covered under the said category are treated as expedited cases. Presently, appeals pertaining to year 2002 are included in the final hearing board notified by this Court. The appeal of the applicant pertains to year 2009 and cannot be given precedence over other older cases falling under the same category. 2. Accordingly, even the request for early hearing of the criminal appeal cannot be countenanced. Instead, this application is rejected with direction to the Office to process the criminal appeal as per its turn under caption `convicts in jail’. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)