1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 427 OF 2009 Ramchandra Shitalaprasad Pandey @ Bachchi Pandey .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent S.V. Marvadi i/b Shri. Deepak L. Mishra for the petitioner Rajesh More, APP for the State CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 8th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No. 290 of 1990 of Ulhasnagar Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 302 of IPC. 3. In the incident, two persons died and one person was injured. The role attributed to the applicant is that he had fired at the police constable Surve who was accompanying the deceased Anna Shetty. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant RMA appln427-09.sxw 2 has been in custody since 25th January, 1995 and trial is not yet over. He has submitted that as the applicant has been in custody for such a long period and there is no hope of trial being disposed of in near future, the applicant should be granted bail only on that ground. The learned APP on the other hand submitted that the applicant was absconding in another cases and he had to be rearrested and brought back. The learned APP submitted that besides this case, two other cases are also pending against the applicant i.e C.R. No. 290 of 1990 of Ulhasnagar Police Station mainly under Section 307 of IPC and under the Arms Act and C.R. No. 48 of 1989 of Vithalwadi Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 302 and the Arms ACt. He further pointed out that the applicant had been convicted in one case under the Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act and TADA. The said case pertains to C.R. No. 159 of 1991 of Khar Police Station i.e TADA case no. 114 of 1991, 114(A) of 1991. The learned APP submitted that looking to the role played by the applicant and the previous history, the applicant ought not to be granted bail. 5. Mr. Marwadi, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that RMA appln427-09.sxw 3 many of the other co-accused have been granted bail and the role of the applicant is similar to that of the other co-accused who have been granted bail. He has submitted that on the ground of parity, the applicant ought to be granted bail. Mr. Marwadi, the learned counsel pointed out that the co-accused no. 1 - Pappu Kalani, no. 2 - P.I. K.R. Mistri, no. 3 - Murli Builder & Murli Ramchandar Puruswani, no. 4 - Sachin Lalji Shirshat, no. 5 - Tirupati Kotiyan and no. 6 - Vijay Kumar Baldev Mitra & Mishhra @ Sharma have been granted bail. He submitted that all of them were co-accused and were granted bail. No doubt, as far as conspiracy is concerned, the role of the applicant is similar to that of other co-accused but it seems that none of the others co-accused have actually fired whereas the applicant had fired at police constable which resulted in death of said constable. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any case of parity. On the other hand, it is seen that the co-accused - Baba Gebril who had fired at Anna Shetty and the police constable has not been granted bail. He is also in custody since the year 1995. 6. Looking to the material gathered by the prosecution, it cannot be RMA appln427-09.sxw 4 said that there is any parity of the present applicant with other co- accused who have been granted bail. In fact, at the most, the applicant can claim parity with Baba Gebrial who is still in custody. 7. As the trial has already commenced, the Session Court to complete the trial by 10th December, 2009. As far as possible, the trial to be taken on day to day basis. 8. Looking to all the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail. The application is disposed in above terms. 9. Mr. Marwadi, the learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to communicate this order to the Session Court. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA appln427-09.sxw 5 RMA appln427-09.sxw