1 Cri.Appln.No.1538/2011 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1538/2011 ( Sau.Sunita Vijay Sawachmal Vs. The State of Maharashtra ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. RR Mantri, Adv. for Applicant/s; Mr.KS Patil APP for State. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 25 th April, 2011. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) Rejection of earlier application (Cri.Appln.No.4325/2010) dated 18.11.2010, is revived by present application by seeking identical relief to release the accused/applicant in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 3) The leaned Counsel, while reading the earlier FIR of learned Tahsildar, attributing the malpractice, extortion and threats exerted by the Class-IV employees of the Govt. hospital, points that the earlier application by present applicant Sunita and one Shakuntalabai, was rejected. Said Shakuntalabai approached this Court in Criminal Application No. 665/2011 and it was allowed on 8th March, 2011. Learned Counsel submits, the statement, which was made for and on behalf of said Shakuntalabai not to challenge identity also is made in the present application and hence claims that the applicant be released on the ground of parity. 4) While rejecting the application, this Court has considered the recitals in the FIR, which specifically indict to the accused/applicant, being a Class-IV employee at the hospital. 5) With the assistance of learned APP, I have gone through the statements of the witnesses, who are employees, nurses, 2 Cri.Appln.No.1538/2011 Sr.Nurses and also the relations of the victim, who suffered the brunt at the behest of the hands of the accused/applicant. 6) Applicant Smt. Shakuntalabai, whose application is allowed, – prima facie established that at the material date and time, when the incident of extortion has taken place, she was on leave. This was one of the predominant factor for this Court to entertain the bail application. The contention to provide identity though is illustrative to the bonafides, however, that by itself will not be available to be so done, as the accused/applicant has made her presence scarce after rejection of her application by order dated 18th November, 2010. 7) The memories and the shed of identification have its diminishing effect by such conduct of the accused/applicant. 8) Taking all the aspects into consideration, principle of parity is not applicable to be accelerated for releasing the applicant/accused in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The application is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/