IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 682 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 682 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 682 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2007 1.Shatrughna @ Shatrya Trimbak Bhosale 2. Kavita S. Bhosale .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. Y.J. Master for the applicant Mr. S.R.Shinde APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 3RD MARCH, 2008 DATED; 3RD MARCH, 2008 DATED; 3RD MARCH, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the application on behalf of the applicant nos.2 and 3 i.e. Kavita Bhosale and Vikas Kale is not pressed at this stage. However he seeks liberty to file appropriate application for bail on behalf of the applicant nos.2 and 3 after expiry of a period of six months. Withdrawal of the bail application at this stage with liberty to file application for bail after six months is granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel in supportof the bail application for applicant no.1 Shatrughna Trimbak Bhosale. The applicant no.1 has been convicted of offence punishable under section 395 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years. The accused no.1 is also convicted for the offence under section 420 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the State. Perusal of para 4 of the affidavit-in-reply reveals that as many as eight sessions cases are pending against him for committing offence of dacoity and the like. Cases which are eight in number and pending against applicant no.1 are over a period from the year 1985 to the year 2005. 3. Perused the judgment. In my opinion it is not a fit case for granting bail to the applicant no.1 against whom eight cases of dacoity are pending in different courts for the offences committed at different places. The learned counsel for the applicant no.1 has submitted that the applicant was released on bail during the trial and hence he should be granted bail. He has also pointed out that the applicant no.1 is in custody from the date of the judgment i.e. for a period of about one year. I do not find that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant no.1. In the result, his bail application is rejected. ....