IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 950 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 950 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 950 OF 2008 Rajendra Udhaji Lad. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Samir A. Vaidya for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Zaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 10th April 2008. DATED: 10th April 2008. DATED: 10th April 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By order dated 25th February, 2008 criminal application of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court. Subsequent to that i.e. on 4th March, 2008 an anticipatory bail was granted by this Court to co-accused- one Vilas Salaskar. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant would be entitled to bail on parity. 3. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that order of the Sessions Judge rejecting bail is dated 25th February, 2008, whereas the High Court order is subsequent to that i.e. on 4th March, 2008. Thus, the ground of parity was not available to the applicant at the time when his application was heard and rejected by the Sessions Court. 4. In the above view of the matter, the applicant is permitted to withdraw this application with liberty to approach the Sessions Court to seek bail on the ground of parity. In the event of such application, the Sessions Judge shall examine the case and pass appropriate order. 5. In the meanwhile, interim order to continue for a period of one week. However, continuation of interim order would not be taken as circumstance in favour of the applicant. 6. In the result, application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the applicant. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE