1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4532 OF 2010 Mr Prannath Eknath Pawase, .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.C.R.Sonawane, with Mr Kamtesh Malii/b Prakash Naik for the applicant Mrs. Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 02/12/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is the second application for bail. The earlier application (1212 of 2009) of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 22.4.2009. This application is filed on parity with the other accused, who are released on bail. Mr Sonawane, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited my attention to the order passed by this court dated 27.8.2009 passed in Criminal Application no.3577 of 2009 and to the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by this court in Criminal Application No.4369 of 2009 and submitted that the applicant is entitled for bail on parity with the applicants in these applications. I have perused both the orders. This Court, in Criminal Application T 2 No.3577 of 2009, rejected the prayer for bail of applicant nos 1 to 7 and 9 and granted bail to applicant no.8 on merits after having perused the material on record and the order dated 22.4.2009 passed in Criminal Application No.1212 of 2009. Insofar as applicant no.8 is concerned, it is clear that he was released on bail on parity with Dilip Pawse-applicant no.1 in Criminal Application No.1212 of 2009. Thus, the present applicant is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity with applicant no.8 in Criminal Application No.3577 of 2009. Even the applicant in Criminal Application No.4369 of 2009 was also released in view of the fact that he was not named in the FIR. It is clear that the case of Dilip Pawse-applicant no.1 in Criminal Application No.1212 of 2009 and the applicant- Sandip Patil in Criminal Application No.4369 of 2009 was similar. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the applicant-Prannath Eknath Pawse who was named in the FIR and to whom specific overt act was attributed, is not entitled for bail on parity. Hence the application is rejected. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) 3