sat 1 appln 1495-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1495 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2010 Sheshnath Ramanand Upadhyay & Anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.D.G. Khamkar for the Applicants. Mr.J.P. Kharge, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DECEMBER 5, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard learned Advocate Mr.Khamkar for the applicants. 2 The applicants are the original accused nos.1 and 3. They are convicted for the offence punishable u/ss. 452 r/w 34 of IPC and 392 r/w 34 of IPC. The substantive sentence for the offence punishable u/s. 452 is two years and substantive sentence for the offence punishable u/s. 392 is four years. Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the trial court. 3 During the course of hearing, it is submitted by learned Advocate sat 2 appln 1495-2011 Mr.Khamkar for the applicants that the applicants have undergone sentence of three years and their appeals are not likely to be heard in near future as old appeals are being heard. 4 It is correct that the fresh appeals are not being taken up because of pendency of very old appeals. However, in the present case, there are other considerations also which need to be taken care of. Both the applicants had similar other cases also. These cases had been disposed of. However, they do not have any permanent address. Both of them appear to be staying temporarily at the address given in the title of the judgment. I have strong apprehension that in the event of their being released on bail, they will not be available for hearing of appeal. I have also apprehension that they may indulge in similar offences again. None of them deserve bail. 5 The application stands rejected. 6 The learned Advocate is at liberty to mention for expeditious hearing on Friday, 9th December, 2011. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)