1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5073 OF 2009 Shri Sagar Baban Chakankar Vs. State of Mah. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Ms Deepa Matwankar, for the applicant. Mrs V.R.Bhosale, APP wth Mrs P.P.Shinde, APP for the respondent-State. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18/02/2010 PC: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is the second application for bail. The earlier application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 29.6.2009. Learned counsel for the applicant has now prayed for bail on parity by placing reliance upon the order passed by V.M.Kanade,J. dated 12.11.2009 in Criminal Application No. 4335 of 2009 filed by the co-accused Navnath Ramhari Tamane. By this T 2 order, Navnath Tamane has been released on bail. While releasing him on bail, in paragraph 3 of the order V.M.Kanade,J. observed thus : “3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the other two accused have been released on bail. Accused Rahul Chakankar was released on bail by this Court (Coram : Shri D.B.Bhosale,J.) by order dated 26.9.2009 in Criminal Application No.1904 of 209. The other accused has been released by the Sessions Court.” (emphasis supplied) From bare perusal of paragraph 3, it is clear that the learned Judge enlarged Navnath Tamane on bail in view of the submissions made on his behalf that the other two accused were already released on bail. The statement made by the learned counsel for Navnath Tamane was factually incorrect. Navnath Tamane was also apprehended immediately after the occurrence along with the present applicant on the same day. The third accused (Rahul Tukaram Chakankar) was 3 arrested on the next day. There are only three accused in this case. Rahul Chakankar was released on bail vide order dated 29.6.2009 in Criminal Application No.1904 of 2009 for the reasons recorded in the said order. On the very same day, the application of Sagar Baban Chakankar was rejected (vide order dated 29.6.2009 in Criminal Application No.1429 of 2009). Thereafter, the application of the third accused (Navnath Tamane) was placed before V.M.Kanade, J. It is thus clear that the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, in Criminal Application No. 4335 of 2009 filed on behalf of Navnathi Tamane, that the other two accused were already released on bail, was factually incorrect. The applicant and Navnath Tamane were apprehended immediately after the occurrence. The role of Navnath Tamane and the present applicant was identical. The order rejecting the earlier application of the 4 present applicant was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge (V.M.Kanade,J.). In the circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail on parity. Hence, the application is rejected. Office is directed to place this order along with the order dated 29.6.2009 passed in Criminal Application No. 1904 of 2009 and the order dated 12.11.200 in Criminal Application No. 4335 of 2009, so also the order dated 29.6.2009 in Criminal Application No. 1492 of 2009 before V.M.Kanade, J for information. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) 5