1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2166 OF 2005 1.Sachin Aburao More and another. ... Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Opponent. --- Mr.Yogesh Lohiya, for the Applicants. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State-Opponent.. CORAM: A.M.Khanwilkar,J. DATED: 4th April, 2005. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. I see no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the Lower Court for rejecting the prayer for bail at the instance of the present applicants. The offence in question is a serious offence. Besides, there is direct evidence against the applicants. Although the co-accused Mr.Santosh has been released on bail, the applicants are not claiming parity as the said accused has been released for the reasons recorded by the Lower Court in its order dated 2 23rd December,2004, which are not available to the applicants. Suffice it to say that there is sufficient material to indicate the complicity of the applicants herein in the commission of offence. Hence, the application is rejected. 2. As the prayer for bail is rejected, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case as High Court Expedited Case. 3. The applicants shall co-operate for early disposal of the trial. In case the trial Court is of the opinion that the applicants are responsible for delay in early conclusion of the Trial, that fact may be recorded in the roznama which will be reckoned as and when required. --- (A.M.Khanwilkar,J)