1 (Appln 4484 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 4484 OF 2010 Ganesh Nivrutti Marne ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Avinash Kamkhedkar for Applicant Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. This is a second application filed by the Applicant for bail. First application was rejected by this Court by order dated 17th February, 2009 . By the said order, the application filed by the Applicant was rejected on merits. 2. It is submitted that the prosecution named about 117 witnesses, and even the trial has begun, it may take some time to be completed. It is submitted that after 2 (Appln 4484 of 2010) this application for bail was rejected, the two other co- accused filed their applications for bail and their applications have been allowed by this Court in two separate criminal applications bearing Criminal Application No. 4656 of 2010 in the case of Santosh Ramchandra Lande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Criminal Application No.4486 of 2010 in the case of Sanjay alias Lala Mahipati Kangude Vs. The State of Maharshtra. It is submitted that both the applicants were identified in the test identification parade. This Court, however, was pleased to grant bail to both these applicants. 3. The learned APP for the State has submitted that the Applicant had filed a petition in this Court for setting aside the provisions of the MCOC Act. However, the said petition was dismissed and, thereafter, an SLP was preferred by the Applicant in the Supreme Court, which SLP was also dismissed. It was submitted that the Apex 3 (Appln 4484 of 2010) Court, however, expedited the trial. The Learned APP for the State submitted that the prosecution proposed to examine about 70 to 75 witnesses. 4. In my view, it will not be possible to accept the submissions made by Shri Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant. The first application was decided on merits. So far as the other two co-accused who are released on bail by this Court, are concerned, they were merely present at the spot and fled away on motor cycle and, therefore, the role attributed to them and the present Applicant is different. Therefore, the Applicant would not be entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The trial, however, is expedited. The Sessions Court may decide the case as expeditiously as possible and, if possible, conducting the trial on day- to-day basis. The application, therefore, is rejected and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)