1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1472 OF 2010 Lalesh Fakerya Padgilwar ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Mr.A.S. Usmanpurkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr.P.P. More, APP for respondent. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE :29th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.A.S. Usmanpurkar, learned counsel for applicant as well as Mr.P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.0017/2010 registered with police station Goregaon, Dist.Hingoli for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, since he has been arrested on 23.02.2010 and he is in judicial custody presently. 3. It appears that offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by complainant namely Rakeshkumar Ratansing Chaudhari on 23.02.2010 in respect of occurrence of offence during intervening night between 2 22nd February, 2010 and 23rd February, 2010 of dacoity by five to six robbers. On perusal of the investigation papers and considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears that there are two eye witnesses to the occurrence of incident namely Ravindrakumar Chaudhari and Shivkumar as well as complainant himself, whose statements have been recorded during the course of investigation and said statements apparently connect present applicant to the alleged crime. Moreover, applicant herein was identified in Test Identification parade and role attributed to applicant is driver of the pickup van and said pickup van has been seized, which is allegedly used in commission of crime. Hence, apparently present applicant was present at the time of commission of crime. 4. Apart from that, diesel tank, robbed articles, stick and iron rod etc have been recovered during the course of investigation. However, investigation is still incomplete and same is under progress. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that, other co-accused persons in the said crime are already enlarged on bail and therefore, on the ground of principle of parity, he be released on bail. However, it is a matter of record that two bail applications preferred by applicant were rejected by learned court of Sessions, and thereafter, present application is 3 preferred by the present applicant, and therefore, applicant's case stands on different footing, and hence, he is not entitled for the benefit of principle of parity. 6. Having comprehensive view of the matter, complicity of applicant in the alleged crime is apparent, and therefore, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant can not be accepted. 7. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri1472.08