1 Appln 378-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.378 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.432 OF 2008 Shashi Dhondiba Nalawade ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.V.V.Salunke, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.Geeta Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 21ST DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for re-calling of Order passed by this Court on 18th November, 2010 canceling bail granted to the present applicant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel for the applicant first submits that a Criminal Revision Application was not at all 2 Appln 378-10 maintainable against an Order of the Sessions Judge granting bail to the present applicant. For this purpose, he relied on Judgment of Aurangabad Bench of this Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. DEELIPKUMAR HIRACHAND JAIN, reported in 2000(1) Mh.L.J 635 and a Judgment in State of Maharashtra Versus Rajan Tulsidas Shah, reported at 2006(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.)239. It has to be noted that there were two Applications for cancellation of bail, one by Uttam Bandu Shilimkar bearing Cri.Appln.No. 2493 of 2008 and Cri.Revi. Appln.No.432 of 2008 filed by the State of Maharashtra. Even, if it is taken that Criminal Application is not maintainable since what was sought is cancellation of bail, the application by State would have to be treated as one for cancellation of bail and not a Revision Application. Therefore, technical objection to the maintainability of Criminal Revision Application filed by the State of Maharashtra has to be rejected and the application would 3 Appln 378-10 have to be treated as one simplicitor for cancellation of bail. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant next submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not in error in observing that Test Identification Report of the accused is negatived on the basis of some statement of eye witness recorded at the Test Identification Parade. There is no need at this stage to go into the question of appreciation of evidence to find out that whether identification of the applicant by witness at the Test Identification Parade is reliable or not. Right now, what is material is that whether the learned Judge, who granted bail was right in observing that the applicant was not identified at the Test Identification Parade. It is clear from the Memo of Test Identification Parade, a copy whereof is made available for my perusal by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that the applicant 4 Appln 378-10 was identified at the Test Identification Parade and the learned Judge had misread the memo. In view of this, since this was the ground on which bail was granted, the Order was rightly revoked therefore, there is no question of re-calling that Order. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused similarly identified at the Test Identification Parade, have been admitted to bail by this Court & therefore, on that ground applicant should be admitted to bail. It would be open to the applicant to apply afresh for bail on the ground of parity. Availability of such ground cannot influence cancellation of bail granted to the applicant, since the order whereby bail was granted to the applicants was based on misreading of memo of T.I.Parade. 5. The order canceling bail shall be kept in abeyance for a period of eight weeks since 5 Appln 378-10 the applicants wishes to question this order before the Supreme Court. 6. Criminal Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)