11crn4469-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4469 OF 2009 Mauli @ Dynandeo Tukaram Gaikwad. .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.S.A. Ingawle, Advocate i/b. Mr.Sharad Suryawanshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time in this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant. 2. The applicant was arrested along with co-accused on 23rd July, 2008 in C.R. No.58 of 2008 of Yerawada Police Station,Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 363, 394 read with Section 34 of IPC. 11crn4469-09 2 3. Allegations against the present applicant are that sometime on 28th January, 2008 at broad day light in the midday one milk vending tempo was accosted by the two persons by intercepting the tempo with the help of a motorcycle. The complainant and others were taken down and were manhandled. By that time, two more persons came to the spot on another motorcycle and they joined their earlier two associates. The complainant was taken away from the spot on one of the motorcycles, under the threat of sickle, and he was robbed of cash collection of Rs.70,000/- and odd. 4. Initially there was no trace of the applicant as reportedly the miscreants were unknown. Subsequently, according to the police, present applicant and his associates were put under arrest on 23rd July, 2008. Test identification parade was also conducted separately. So far as the present applicant is concerned, he has been identified by two witnesses and allegedly at the instance of the present applicant, an amount of Rs.14,000/- was recovered from 11crn4469-09 3 some place, a sort of Airtel booth of which the present applicant is a franchise. 5. During arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant strongly submitted that on the ground of parity, he may be granted bail as other co-accused, similarly placed so far as the allegations are concerned, have been granted bail by different Sessions Courts. Said applications were preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge who was seized of the bail application preferred by the present applicant and it was observed by the Sessions Court that various other cases of similar nature were pending against the applicant and as such the benefit of parity was denied. Again on this position, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that even such type of cases were also pending against the co-accused however they were released on bail. 6. On the above submission on behalf of the applicant, this Court enquired with the learned A.P.P. whether any applications have been preferred by the State for cancellation 11crn4469-09 4 of the bail orders passed in favour of other co-accused, he answered in negative. Considering the material as alleged against the applicant and considering at least prima facie involvement of the applicant in similar such cases, and still considering that the mater is now sufficiently old so that trial can proceed after framing of the charge, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release the present applicant on bail. Hence the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.4469 of 2009 for bail stands rejected. [ii] Directions are given to the Additional Sessions Court which is seized of the present matter to expeditiously deal with the matter and complete the trial as far as possible within nine months from receipt of this order. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)