1 APPA 846/11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.846 OF 2011 IN APPEAL NO.414 OF 2009 Sartajkhan Mumtajkhan Pathan : Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. Mr.Amin Solkar for the Applicant. Mr. J P Yagnik APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & K U CHANDIWAL, JJ DATE : 21st JULY 2011 P.C. 1 Heard. 2 By this application, the applicant prays for bail. The Applicant is Original Accused No.3. He was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 364-A r/w 120(B), 365 r/w 120(B), 368 r/w 120(B), 395, 395 r/w 397, 387 r/w 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, r/w 25 r/w 35 of the Arms Act and Section 2(1)(d), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act. 2 APPA 846/11 3 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, according to prosecution the applicant was driving vehicle along with other accused persons and the persons who were kidnapped. The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. Nos.2 and 3 who claims to have identified the applicant but security guard did not identify the accused/applicant. The learned counsel submits that considering the nature of evidence and role attributed to applicant, prayer for bail would be considered, pending hearing of appeal. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant is in jail since last 7 years. The applicant would comply with the conditions of bail, if he is released. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that hearing of the appeal be expedited. 4 The learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the applicant and other co-accused are involved in serious crime of kidnapping for ransom. The learned APP points out that the applications for bail filed by the co-accused Nos.1 and 4 were rejected by this Court. According to learned APP, even on merits there is no case for grant of bail. 5 We have perused the record. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP, prima face we find that evidence of PW Nos.2 and 3 involves applicant in 3 APPA 846/11 crime. There is a strong prima facie case against applicant. Application filed by original accused No.1-Rajesh Dhanaji Dhondi being Criminal Application No.511 of 2009 was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court (Smt.Ranjana Desai & R G Ketkar, JJ) on 10/7/2009. Application filed by original accused No.4- Majhar Nashir Shaikh being Criminal Application No.1435 of 2010 was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : A M Khanwilkar and A R Joshi, JJ) on 7/1/2011. Hearing of this appeal has already been expedited. We do not find that this is a fit case for grant bail to applicant/accused. The application is rejected. (K U CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)