1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2009 Gopalsingh B. Rajput & Ors., .. Applicants/ Appellants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Shri S. P. Kadam, for Applicants/Appellants Shri D. P. Adsule, A.P.P. for State. Coram: A. R. JOSHI, J. Dated: 15th JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard rival submission for sometime, on this bail application, preferred by Original Accused Nos. 6 and 7 for their release on bail during pendency of Criminal Appeal which is already admitted. 2. Initially, total 10 accused persons, were tried before Sessions Court, Bombay for various offences and given punishment under sections 395 and 397 r/w section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Present Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were convicted for the offences punishable under section 395 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 Srj 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-each. They were also punished under section 397 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-each. They are also punished under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-each. Apart from these punishments, Accused No. 6 was also convicted for offences punishable under section 3 r/w 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. 3. On the relevant day of the incident on 10th August, 2005, complainant was an employee of some Courier Company, alighted from Luxury Bus near J. J. Fly Over and when he was proceeding ahead on the road, some unknown persons came from his behind and he was assaulted and robbed of his black colour rexin bag, containing cash amount of Rs.13,05,100/-. He was also robbed of the packet containing electronic items which he was carrying. The role assigned to Accused No. 6 is that he was armed with a revolver during the incident. Role assigned to present Accused No.7 is of holding iron pipe and assaulting the complainant on his abdomen and other parts of his body. It appears that said robbers came on the spot on two motor cycles and after the incident of robbery was over, they fled from the spot on motorcycles of original Accused Nos. 2 and 3. Srj 3 4. During the arguments , it is submitted on behalf of the Applicants/ Appellants that the Co-Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were released on bail during pendency of the appeal which is the order passed by this Court, whereas Original Accused No. 5 was released on bail by another bench. It is the factual position of the said Accused Nos.2, 3, and 5, were released on bail considering their specific role. In any event, the parity cannot be claimed by the present Applicants/ Appellants seeking their release on bail, granted to said Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5. 5. Considering the above situation and also considering that there are criminal incident against the present Applicants / Appellants and two cases for the offences punishable under section 457 and 380 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, pending against Applicant/ Appellant Accused Nos. 6 and atleast one case pending for the similar offence against Accused No.7, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a case in which during the pendency of the appeal, they can be released on bail and hence, present bail application is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) Srj