IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4455 OF 2008 Imran Abdul Shaikh .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra through Indapur Police Station C.R.No.185 of 2006 .... Respondent Mr.Rahul S. Kate, for the applicant. Mrs.A.A.Mane, A.P.P., for the respondent State. CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED: 12th JANUARY, 2009. P.C. 1. The bail application of the present applicant was rejected by a speaking order dated 24-04-2008. This second application is filed contending that some of the accused namely Javed, Sachin, Swapnil and Munir have been granted bail and that should be treated as change in the circumstances for the purposes of considering the question whether the bail should be granted to the applicant. 2. The learned Advocates Mr.Kate, took me through the orders passed as regards grant of bail in respect of Javed, Swapnil and Munir. All those orders are prima facie passed on the ground that the names of the respective accused are not mentioned in the FIR and that their names were referred to in the subsequent stage. In so far as the present applicant is concerned, the bail came to be rejected on the ground that Nagesh, whose statement was recorded on 27-11-2006 i.e. On the next day of the occurrence, had implicated the present applicant and had enumerated the role of driving a jeep, carrying the assailants to the spot and taking away the assailants after the incident is over. It is required to be mentioned that in the statement of Nagesh, he specifically makes a reference to Sachin, Javed, Swapnil by attributing the specific role in as much as Sachin is said to be carrying Axe, and Javed is carrying wooden baton and Swapnil is carrying sword. This will ultimately show that witness Nagesh had seen the co-accused at site and that statement of Nagesh is very clear and it gives a specific role against the present applicant. Javed, Swapnil, Sachin and Munir have been granted bail, but they have been granted bail on different counts. The prosecution case that applicant carried the assailants to the spot and took them away from the spot, is not at all shattered and there is no specific reference in the orders which are produced before the Court to disbelieve that case of the prosecution. 3. In the substance, the case of the prosecution launched against the present applicant through Nagesh that the applicant had brought the assailants to the spot in a jeep and had taken them away, stands. If this is so, grant of bail to Javed and others, by itself cannot be considered as change in the circumstance. In view of above, no new case is made out by the present applicant and the application for bail is required to be rejected. Hence, the order : - The application is rejected. If the applicant is desirous of facing trial expeditiously, he is free to make an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the case is pending. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, shall consider the pendency in his Court and decide the said application. ( R.Y.Ganoo, J.)