1 Cri-A-5196-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5196 OF 2010 Ajay Singh S/o Keshav Singh ... Applicant (Accused No.2) vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Ms. Anjali Patil,Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. P.H.Kantharia, APP, for the respondent - State. Mr. P.Y.More, Police Inspector present in Court. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 1st December, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. 2. The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.77/2010 registered at Khar Police Station under Section 364A of IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a boy aged about 11 years was abducted and confined in a room. When the boy did not return home, search was made, but he could not be found. Thereafter some telephone call making a demand of Rs.17 lakhs as ransom to release the boy was received by his parents. Finally the police caught and arrested the rickshaw driver, namely, Pravin by whose rickshaw he was taken away from the spot of 2 Cri-A-5196-10.sxw incident to the place where he was confined. On the basis of the information given by the rickshaw driver police went to the place where the boy was confined in one room. The present applicant was found along with the boy. It appears that in all four persons, including the rickshaw driver were involved in the abduction of the boy for a ransom. There was also a threat to kill the boy if the amount is not paid. Therefore, a serious offence was committed by the accused persons including the present applicant. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant seeks bail on the principle of parity because, according to her, accused Pravin, the rickshaw driver, has been granted bail. She also contended that even though charge-sheet is filed, the case is not committed to the Court of Sessions and the present applicant is in jail since 15.2.2010. 4. The learned APP, on instructions, makes a statement that another accused, Pravin, who was granted bail has absconded and therefore bailable warrant has been issued against him. Notice is also issued to his surety. According to her, in these circumstances, the matter could not proceed further. It is reported that the surety is likely to appear before the Court on 4.12.2010. 3 Cri-A-5196-10.sxw 5. In view of the above circumstances, I find that it is not a fit case to grant bail. However, if the absconding accused Pravin is not traceable, it will not be desirable not to commit the case for long and to delay the trial for unnecessarily long period. 6. In view of the above, the application for bail stands rejected. However, if the another accused Pravin who is on bail is not arrested and produced before the Court within one month from this day, the trial Court may commit the case to the Court of Sessions showing said Pravin as an absconding accused. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)