FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1278 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.65 OF 2007 Ladkya S. Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders. of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Daulat Khamkar with R.R. Mahagaonkar for the Applicant. Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 9th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is the fourth application for grant of bail. The first application though made alongwith other accused was only pressed in so far as lady accused is concerned. That application was therefore granted against the lady accused with liberty to the present applicant to take out fresh application. Thereafter, second Criminal Bail Application No.475 of 2007 was preferred and that was rejected by (J.H. Bhatia,J.) on 25.4.2007, on merits. Then third application being Criminal Bail Application No.679 of 2008 was thereafter rejected by me on 17.9.2008 on the ground that the orders passed in the earlier two bail applications were not annexed. I have given liberty to take out proper application annexing the earlier orders. In the circumstances, present application is filed. I find however, that the bail application of the present applicant was rejected on merits on 25.4.2007. It was sought to be contended that the observations made therein were not correct. It is not possible for me to look into this aspect of the matter. It was then sought to be contended that after rejecting the bail application by this court, bail was granted to co accused Vikas @ Uya B. Kale on 14.11.2008. On perusing that order, I find that when the first application of the said accused was rejected, liberty was granted to him to apply for bail after the period of six months. No such liberty was granted to the present applicant when his application was rejected on merits. It was lastly sought to be contended that the wife of the accused is ill. No evidence in this regard has been produced. It will be open for the applicant to apply for parole or for grant of bail on this ground after producing proper evidence in that regard. Present application is however, stands dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)