[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2179 OF 2008 Sameer @ Papu Kasam Shaikh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Ms.Pranali Kakade Advocate for Mr.Subhash P. Hulyalkar Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 23, 2008 DATE : JULY 23, 2008 DATE : JULY 23, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.134 of 2007 of Khadki Police Station, Pune. The said case is mainly under Section 395 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant along with other accused committed dacoity in the house of the complainant. The accused persons were armed with deadly weapons like Sattur, knife etc. The complainant received injuries in the said [-2-] incident. After committing dacoity, when the accused persons were running away, the complainant raised shouts, whereupon the people in the locality caught the applicant and one other accused person. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that co-accused Mayur and Amol whose case is similar to that of the applicant, have been granted bail and hence, it is submitted that the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 5. It is seen that co-accused Mayur and Amol were not caught red-handed. However, the present applicant has been caught red-handed at the spot. In such case, it is seen that there is no parity at all between the applicant and the co-accused who have been granted bail. From the material on record, it is seen that the applicant is clearly implicated in a serious offence. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. 6. Application is rejected and is disposed of accordingly. [-3-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]