mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1342 OF 2008 Narayan Ramchandra Shinde & anr. Appellants versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Smt.Anjali Patil for appellants. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th January 2009 PC : 1. Admit. Liberty to file private paper book. Learned APP waives service. Call for record and proceedings. (A.S.OKA, J.) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1440 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1342 OF 2008 Narayan Ramchandra Shinde & anr. Appellants versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Smt.Anjali Patil for appellants. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th January 2009 PC : 1. Heard advocate for the applicants and learned APP for the State. The applicants are the original accused nos.1 and 3 who have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 395 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentence is of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The learned counsel for the applicants has taken me through the notes of evidence and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge. She submitted that there is hardly any material available against the applicants and, therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Her submission is that the applicants have already ((-3-)) undergone the sentence for a period of more than three years. The learned APP pointed out that as far as applicant no.1 is concerned, there are four cases pending against him. Out of four, in three cases, the allegation is of commission of offence under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The submission of the learned APP is that considering the antecedents, the first applicant is not entitled to bail. As far as second applicant is concerned, there were two cases against him but both the cases have resulted in acquittal. 2. As far as first applicant is concerned, he was apprehended on the spot by the members of public and was handed over to the Police. As far as second applicant is concerned, there is no allegation that he was holding any weapon and allegation against him is that he was searching the drawers in the mezennine hall. There are no antecedents of the second applicant in the sense that both the cases against the second applicant have resulted in acquittal. 3. Therefore, though a case is made out for enlarging applicant no.2 on bail, no case is ((-4-)) made out to grant bail as far as first applicant is concerned. The hearing of the appeal is expedited and liberty is granted to file private paper book. 4. Hence, the criminal application is disposed of by passing following order :- (a) Prayer for grant of bail insofar as first applicant is concerned, stands rejected; (b) The second applicant Hubulal @ Ramesh Rajnarayan Patel shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The bail is granted to second applicant on the condition that he will report to Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai once in every calender month till disposal of the appeal. (A.S.OKA, J.)