1 USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1002 OF 2009 Santosh @ Dedh Dashrath Swami .. Appellant v/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent (At the instant of Kandivali Police Stn., C.R. No.168/2005) ........ Mr. Manohar Rajput for appellant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for respondent State ........ CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. Dated : 10th November, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Rajput learned counsel for the appellant, who is accused No.1 in MCOCA Special Case No.11 of 2006. He had filed Bail Application No.5 of 2007 which came to be rejected on 18.10.2007 and hence, this Appeal under Section 12 of the MCOCA Act. 2 2. Affidavit in reply has been filed for the State and it is stated that the trial in the case is in progress and the next date is 14.11.2009. By now, 34 witnesses have been examined and another 26 witnesses are yet to be examined. The trial has been delayed mainly because of the applications being filed by the accused for adjournments. 3. As per the prosecution case, the appellant has played a major role in the crime and there are 3 witnesses who have identified him. There is a confessional statement made by one of the co-accused in which the role of the applicant has been stated. The prosecution further states that the appellant is a member of the organized crime syndicate and there are 8 criminal cases registered against him. It has been further pointed out that in 2 cases, he has been acquitted and in one case he has been discharged and thus there are 4 cases in which trial is pending. 4. As the trial in MCOCA Special Case No.11 of 2006 is in progress and out of the 7 accused, 6 of them have been released on bail, we do not find any error so as to cause interference in the order passed by 3 the Special learned Judge rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant. The learned Special Judge has considered the case of the applicant and held that he could not be released on bail. 5. In addition to the reasoning set out in the impugned order, we have also gone through the affidavit filed for the State in this appeal and we are satisfied that the appeal must fail at the threshold. The appeal is hereby dismissed accordingly. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]