[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2838 OF 2008 Ganesh @ Laxmiputra Prakash Chiniwar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Ujwal Agandsurve Advocate for Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.251 of 2007 of Fauzdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur. The said case is mainly under Sections 364(A), 363, 385 and 120-B of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant along with others kidnapped Shivprasad. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that co-accused Ravi Bhimrao Borgi and Shivpraksh have been granted bail by this Court and the case of the [-2-] applicant is similar to that of these co-accused, hence, applicant may be granted bail on the ground of parity. 4. The learned APP has pointed out that it was the present applicant who went to the house of victim boy. Thereafter, he told the victim boy that his father had called him and saying so, he took the boy with him in an autorickshaw. The victim boy was taken by the applicant to a place where the Tata Sumo was standing. The other accused persons were in the said Tata Sumo. It is seen that the applicant is the main person who was instrumental in taking away the victim boy from his house and taking the victim boy to the other accused persons. Had it not been for the act of the applicant, the victim boy would not have landed in the custody of the other accused persons. Moreover, the learned APP has stated that the trial has started. Looking to these facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail at this stage. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]