1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.1095 of 2009 In Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2004 Govind Babu Karalekar .. .. Applicant (Orig.accused No.1) v/s. State of Mah. .. .. .. Respondent (Orig.Complainant) Mr.V.B.Koshe i/by Mr.Avinash D. Kamkhedkar for Applicant. Mr.P.A.Pol, PP for State. ---- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 29th September, 2009 P.C. : 1.We have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant, who prays for being released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2004 filed by him. 2.It is evident from the record that similar prayer made by him was turned down by this Court on three different occasions. Criminal Application No.5626 of 2004 was rejected on 18 th January 2005, Criminal Application No. 5762 of 2005 was rejected on 3 rd October 2006 and Criminal Application No.1437 of 2007 was rejected on 15 th of February 2007. 2 3.Learned Counsel for the Applicant advanced two grounds for being released on bail in this fourth Application. As per him, Shri Sudhir Raosaheb Kale, accused No.2, was released on bail, on 28 th April 2006 by allowing Criminal Application No.151 of 2006 and, therefore, on the ground of parity itself, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. We are afraid, this ground cannot be considered, more so when the same was available to the Applicant in all the three earlier Applications which were rejected. It, therefore, clearly implies that this Court was not satisfied to release the Applicant on the benefit of parity. 4.It was then submitted that the Applicant was in jail for in all 74 months. It was submitted that he was on bail during trial and as soon as the order of conviction and sentence was passed on 15.6.2004, he was taken in custody. 5.This Court noted in the first order dated 18 th January 2005 while rejecting the plea of being released on bail, that the prosecution case was based on two eye witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.5 as well as the circumstantial evidence. 6.Hence, we are not inclined to release the Applicant on 3 bail at this stage and it would be appropriate that the Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.949 of 2004 and 950 of 2004 are listed for final hearing in due course. 7.Hence, the Application is rejected and the Appeals are directed to be listed for final hearing in due course. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]