1 Criminal Application No.873/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.873 OF 2011 Vishal @ Dada s/o Ashok Chaudhari ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for applicant Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. The accused/ applicant, in custody for offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.146/2010, registered at Washi Police Station, seeks bail. 2. Learned counsel for the accused/ applicant read the F.I.R. The order of releasing other accused Sandip, who allegedly possessed knife at the time of committing the dacoity. Counsel submits that principles of parity will be applicable. No identification parade is held. Learned A.P.P. submits, there are already two cases being Crime No.135/2010 of Kaij Police Station and 99/2010 of Beed Police Station for identical offences against the accused, in which charge sheet is filed. 2 Criminal Application No.873/2011 3. Mr. Nagargoje submits, in the two crimes referred above, the accused/ applicant has been released on bail and he has been falsely implicated in those cases. 4. Release of accused/ applicant in above referred Crime No.135/2010 (Kaij Police Station and 99/2010 (Beed Police Station) by itself would not be a ground to release the accused on bail in this case. The application releasing the accused Sandip on bail, had different parameters. There was nothing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to illustrate his criminal antecedents. Had it been presented, the picture would have been different. However, considering the gravity, even for the purpose of release of accused Sandip, the State is at liberty to approach either this Court or the lerned Sessions Judge seeking cancellation of his bail. 5. The manner in which the offence was committed and spate of offence in the region, user of Tavera vehicle is reflected before this Court in at least 4 or 5 identical cases. Custody from 6.10.2010 or filing charge sheet would not alleviate the situation. No merits, application rejected. Observations are prima facie in nature. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri873.2011