1 Appln 3593-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3593 OF 2010 Gangya alias Gangaram Vyankati ..Applicants Shinde & anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.N.R.Bubna, Advocate, for the Applicants Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP, for the Respondent  State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. . The Applicants, who are alleged to be involved in dacoity with murder claim their enlargement on bail. The learned APP has rightly pointed out that the Applicants have been identified in test identification parade by witnesses. The learned Counsel for the Applicants states that there is inconsistency in the identification by the witnesses in as much as one of the eye witnesses has identified one accused while other has not. 2 Appln 3593-10 This can be dealt with by the learned Trial Judge at the trial. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP, the Applicants have been identified by the witnesses. Though there may be substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for applicants that in the FIR description of the accused was not given, all this would be considered at the trial. 2. Criminal Application is, therefore, rejected. 3. The learned Trial Judge would undoubtedly expedite hearing of the case. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)