1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7207 OF 2005 Pravin @ Pintya Pol .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.G.Ansari for applicant Mr.R.Y.Mirza, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th December 2005. P.C. . Heard learned Advocate appearing for applicant. Considering the fact that the applicant is prima facie involved in the act of assaulting a lady, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Moreover, the sessions court has rightly observed that the present applicant has after being annoyed by the fact that the complainant refused to marry him, entered the 2 S.T.bus and after molesting her took away all valuables and jewellery. He has also threatened and abused her. She has stated that incident took place in State Transport bus in which she was travelling along with her grand father. This is not a fit case for enlargement of bail. Other ground is that the applicant should be enlarged on bail because trial is not likely to conclude in near future, the Supreme Court in its decisions in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1866 and in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 921 has observed that this by itself can be no ground to grant bail on successive applications when the gravity of offence and allegations of tampering are being made. This is a case which is fully covered by these two decisions. Hence rejected. 3 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)