:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1119 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.603 OF 2007 Rubina Siraj Sayyad. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr. Amin Solkar for the Applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP. for the State. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 24th November,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is the fifth application for grant of bail. The point urged is that bail ought to be granted because Section 21(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act has no application after the accused has been convicted. It is seen that this very point has been dealt with in the first bail application decided by (A.P.Deshpande, J.) on 12.12.2007. This court has categorically held that Section 21(4) of the M.C.O.C.Act to applies after conviction. Reliance is placed upon an earlier order of this court passed on 12.12.2003 in Criminal Application No.4868 of 2003 in Criminal Appeal No.1340 of 2003. Therein there is a statement that there is no statutory bar for grant of bail under Section 21(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act since the applicant has already been :2: convicted. There are no reasons given in that order and therefore, I am not inclined to take that decision as a binding precedent. In the present case therefore, the point urged has been decided against the applicant and four subsequent applications have failed. In the circumstances, this application is rejected,. However, as the applicant has been arrested on 26.5.2004 and according to the Advocate for the applicant if remissions are taken into consideration she will be completing her punishment within a short period, it is directed that if the main appeal is ready for hearing the same will be added to the final hearing board in the week commencing from 15.12.2008. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)