1 12APPA.1089-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1089 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2005 Chintamani @ Chintya Ramchandra Kadam. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent. .......... Mr. D.G. Khamkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 14th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. This application is filed on the assertion that it is unlikely that the Appeal would be taken up for hearing in the near future. Besides, the applicant has already undergone more than 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years with remission. Further, it is also contended that the applicant was on bail during the trial. 2. Learned APP, however, points out that the nature of offence committed by the applicant will be covered by category 4(d) for which PPD 2 12APPA.1089-11 the applicant will have to undergo the sentence of at least 24 years including the remission period. Moreover the past record of the applicant is not satisfactory inasmuch as when the applicant was released on furlough leave in the year 2007, he did not comply with the conditions specified therein. He overstayed for a period of 192 days and was required to be arrested by the Police for being taken back to jail. 3. The last submission made by the APP in our opinion is good ground for not acceding to the request of the applicant. Moreover, the main basis on which the application is filed is that it is unlikely that the Appeal preferred by the applicant would be taken up for hearing in the near future . That basis will not be available in the present case, because as per the present assignment, all Appeals pertaining to convicts in jail of the year 2005 have been notified to be taken up by this Bench. At present, however, this Court is preoccupied with the confirmation cases. As soon as the confirmation cases are over, the Appeals of convicts in jail pertaining to year 2005 will be taken up for hearing serially. 4. In the circumstances, this application for bail is rejected. 5. At this stage learned Counsel for the applicant prays that at least hearing of the Appeal may be expedited. It is not possible to accede to 3 12APPA.1089-11 this requests. No precedence can be given to the Applicant/Appellant who is also one of the convicts in jail and one of the Appellants amongst other Appeals pertaining to that year. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)