IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6606 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO. 6606 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO. 6606 OF 2005 Chotta Merbhan Guddhavat. ... Applicant. Versus. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. Shri Mahesh Pahane for the Applicant. Ms.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. : ABHAY S. OKA, J. : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 18th October, 2005. : 18th October, 2005. : 18th October, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Applicant is a co-accused in an offence registered under sections 397, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the co-accused have been enlarged on bail and the evidence of test identification parade is inconsistent. He submitted that no specific role has been ascribed to the Applicant. The learned A.P.P. has shown the necessary material on record and has opposed the prayer for bail. 2. The co-accused have been ordered to be enlarged on bail on the ground that they were not identified in the test identification parade. So far as the Applicant is concerned, he has been identified in the test identification parade by the eye witness. Therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to claim parity. The evidence against the Applicant is obviously in the form : 2 : 2 : 2 : of test identification parade. In my view, considering the nature of evidence and the statement of witnesses, when the Applicant has been identified in the test identification parade, no case is made out for enlarging the Applicant on bail. The Application is rejected. The trial is expedited. The trial shall be concluded by treating the same as High Court expedited trial. Judge. Judge. Judge.