[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.329 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2007 Sopan Bhausaheb Gunjal ..Applicant [Ori.Appellant] Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.B.P.Abhale Advocate for Applicant Mr.P.S.Hingorani APP for State ... CORAM:F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM:F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM:F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE :APRIL 7, 2008 DATE :APRIL 7, 2008 DATE :APRIL 7, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant-Appellant. The Appellant Nos.2 and 3 were released on bail who were father and mother of the Applicant. When their bail application was heard, bail application of applicant-appellant No.1 was not pressed with liberty to take out a fresh application for bail. Now the learned counsel for the Applicant has taken out a fresh bail application. The applicant was not on bail during the pendency of the trial. We have perused the judgment of the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions [-2-] Judge as also the injuries set out in paragraph 24. In our opinion, this is not a fit case to grant bail. Prayer for bail is rejected. 2. In so far as the expediting hearing of the matter is concerned, this Bench is taking up appeals for hearing of the year 2006 and 2007 of those who are in jail. Matters are being taken up serially. Hence, no case is made out for expediting the hearing. 3. Application is rejected accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ F.I.REBELLO, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ F.I.REBELLO, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ F.I.REBELLO, J.]