-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3016 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2004 Lahu Maruti Gaudse ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr.S.M.Suryawanshi Advocate for Applicant Ms.S.M.Gajane,A.P.P. for the State CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 8,2005 DATE : JUNE 8,2005 DATE : JUNE 8,2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The applicant has been convicted under Sections 394 and 397 of IPC. The sentence imposed on the applicant is eight years. The evidence of P.W.1 Dattatray Shinde an P.W.2 Ramesh Udmale and the other evidence on record, clearly implicates the applicant. No doubt, the recovery at the instance of the accused person, has not been proved but the accused has been identified by the eye witnesses. The entire evidence on record clearly brings out the complicity of the applicant in the crime. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. -2- 3. Application is rejected. However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J]