1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application (APPA) No. 8/2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2006 ( Pradip Ramdas Bale .vs. State of Maharashtra ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Ashwin Wasnik, Advocate for Applicant/Appellant Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for Respondent. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 19, 2010. Heard. By the present application, the appellant/applicant in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2006 convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life by trial Court vide judgment and order dated 13.7.2005 has renewed prayer for bail. The earlier application No. 1052 of 2006 preferred by the applicant in the appeal has been rejected by this Court for the reasons recorded in the order dated 20.6.2006. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant in connection with the concerned crime was arrested on 13.8.2002 and 2 thereafter remaining in custody for about eight months he was released on bail. After trial he was convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order dated 13.7.2005. He has urged that thus the applicant being behind the bar for a period of five years, his prayer for bail be favourably considered as there is unlikelihood of the appeal being taken up for hearing in the immediate near future. By placing reliance upon the decision in a case of Dal Chand and ors. .vs. State of U.P. reported in 2000 Cri. L.J. Page 4579 and in a case of Akhtari Bi .vs. State of M.P. reported in (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 355 , the learned counsel has contended that second bail application is maintainable as observed in the said decision and as such prayer in the application deserves to be considered in the circumstance of the applicant having remained in custody for such period. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned APP by urging that the applicant is convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life with fine. It is the submission of the learned APP that such a sentence is rarely suspended and the applicant has miserably failed to make out any such a case for releasing him on bail at present. After giving anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and so also the decisions relied by him and reasons given by the trial Court in a judgment for convicting and awarding such a punishment and so also in the earlier order rejecting the application for bail, we 3 are of considered opinion of no exceptional rare case being made out presently by the applicant for grant of bail. In view of the same, the application stands rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai