IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.804 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.383 OF 2006 Ramzan @ Dagdi Nabilal Maidergi )..Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Mr.Aabad H.H.Ponda for the applicant. Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa APP for the State. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 24.07.2008. PC 1. This is a 2nd application for grant of bail. The 1st application was withdrawn on 7.7.2006 and the Court had granted liberty to file a bail application after 2 years. Accordingly, 2nd bail application is filed. From the earlier order, it appears that earlier bail application was withdrawn because two additional C.R.’s have been registered against the present applicant for similar offences. It is contended that in one of the two matters, applicant has been acquitted. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in Sessions Case No.252 of 2006. It is seen from the judgment that the acquittal is because two eye witnesses turned hostile. It is not a clean acquittal on merits. The judgment also indicates that the blood stained chopper was seized : 2 : in the said case and it has the same blood group as of the victim. Admittedly, second C.R. is pending. It is sought to be contended that the amount involved is Rs.200/-. It is irrelevant because accused/applicant did not have known what was the amount in the purse. In my view, there is every likelihood if bail granted to the present applicant, he would likely to continue his activities. Learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt V/s. Sanjay Dutt V/s. Sanjay Dutt V/s. State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra reported in IV (2007) CCR 428 (SC). The facts of that case were different. No injury has been caused to any person. The appellant in that case was not a habitual offender and the offence punishable was not an offence which was punishable with life imprisonment. The ratio of that case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case particularly when the applicant appears to be a habitual offender. In this view of the matter, application is rejected. Since the applicant has undergone 2 years and 3 months sentence, hearing of the appeal is expedited. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)