[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2854 OF 2008 Ajaysingh Sajansingh Labhana ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi Advocate for Applicant Mr.Rajesh More APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.I-24 of 2008 of Ulhasnagar Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 394 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. The complainant has stated that the applicant along with two other accused persons came to his hand-cart where he was selling ice-cream. One of the co-accused demanded liquor and a glass to drink liquor. The complainant only gave a glass and refused to get the bottle of liquor. On account of this, all the three accused persons including the [-2-] applicant, assaulted the complainant. Injuries were caused on the nose and face of the complainant. Co-accused took away all the money from the cash-box of the complainant and all the three accused ran away. 4. The applicant is involved in eight cases. The details of the said cases are as under: 1] CR No.I-90 of 2008 under Section 25(1)(a) & (b) of Arms Act; 2] CR No.I-220 of 2004 of Dombivali Police St. under Sections 385, 452, 323, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC; 3] CR No.I-180 of 2005 of Ulhasnagar Police Station under Sections 452, 324, 504, 506, 435, 427 r.w. 34 of IPC; 4] CR No.218 of 2005 of Central Police Station under Section 186 of IPC; 5] CR No.1190 of 2004 of Central Police Station under Sections 323 and 427 of IPC; [-3-] 6] Chapter case No.76 of 2004; 7] CR No.I-72 of 2006 of Titwala Police Station under Sections 307, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504,506 of IPC; 8] CR No.II-160 of 2007 of Ulhasnagar Police Station under Sections 142 of Bombay Police Act. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been acquitted in three of the above cases. No details have been given as to in which case, the applicant has been acquitted. Even assuming that the applicant has been acquitted in three out of eight cases, there are still five cases pending against the applicant. Looking to the antecedents of the applicant, it is seen that he is in habit of misusing the bail granted to him. In such circumstances, it is rightly apprehended by the prosecution that if the applicant is now released on bail, he would again misuse the liberty if granted to him. Looking to the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail. Application is rejected. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]