1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.461 OF 2010. NINAD S/O GIDAMBAR CHANDEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PSO GITTIKHADAN POLICE STATION NAGPUR. ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Abdul Bashir, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S. S. Doifode, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2010. 1. The applicant is one amongst three accused persons in Crime No.18 of 2010 under Section 420, 468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code of Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur. 2. The applicant is claiming bail, inter alia, on the following grounds:- (a) That the main accused owner of the Firm namely Swami Computer Education who is one of the accused persons is already released on bail. 2 (b) The material has already been recovered from the accused in the aforesaid crime. (c) The investigation is on the verge of completion. (d) The final examinations of 2nd Semester of Engineering for which the applicant is appearing are to be commenced from April 2010 and it would suffer grave loss to his career if the applicant is not released on bail. 3. Perusal of record, case diary and reply suggests that, though the said Proprietor is the owner of the Firm and uses the Computer Institute, various acts of forging of documents are attributable to the applicant. 4. It is seen that the accused who has been released on bail namely Laxminarayan Bhangadkar was the Proprietor of Swami Computer Education through released on bail, said release cannot be used as a ground for parity for grant of bail to the present applicant. 5. The question is not whether the other accused is released or should be released rather the question is whether on the facts of the case bail is justified. 3 6. In the present case, it would not be appropriate at this stage to record that the accused is falsely involved. 7. In this situation, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 8. This rejection will not preclude the applicant from making bail application before the Trial Court at appropriate stage. 9. Present application for bail is rejected. Judge //mule//