1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 252 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2008 Dipak Maruti Shelar and anr. .. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Jayant Bardeshkar i/by M/s. Harish Mehta and Co. for applicants. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. March 26, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel i/by M/s. Harish Mehta and Co. for the applicants. Dr. Shaikh, the learned APP, appears for the State. 2. This is the third bail application filed by the applicants, who 2 are original accused nos.1 and 2. In the first bail application i.e. Criminal Application No. 1073 of 2008, all the four accused had applied for being released on bail and this court in its order dated 24/11/2008 specifically distinguished, for the prima facie purposes, the role attributed to accused nos.3 and 4 and held that the said accused deserved to be released on bail. The said application for accused nos.1 and 2 was not pressed for. The applicants, therefore, filed Criminal Application No. 495 of 2009 in the second round for being released on bail and the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 25/6/2009. 3. We have perused the reasoning set out in the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 74 of 2006 and which is subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2008 and having regard to the observations made in the said order, regarding the role of the present applicants, for prima facie consideration, we are satisfied that the applicants have failed to make out a case to suspend the order of sentence and release them on bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. 4. Hence, the application is rejected. 3 5. Hearing in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2008 is hereby expedited as the paper book is ready. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)