- 1 - 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.3551 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.3551 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.3551 OF 2005 Yayatya Gongashya Shinde ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Rahul S. Kate for the Applicant Mr.A.S.Gadkari,A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JUNE 20,2005. : JUNE 20,2005. : JUNE 20,2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Kate for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for State. 2. An offence has been registered against the Applicant and others vide C.R.No. 91 of 2004 under Sections 395, 365, 342, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was absconding and was arrested on 16th December 2004. The offence is allegedly committed in May 2004. 3. Shri Kate submitted that even in the F.I.R. hardly any role is ascribed to the Applicant. He submitted that in view of the the allegations made in the F.I.R., a case is made out for grant of bail. 4. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application by pointing out that as the Applicant was absconding, his case was - 2 - separated and the trial of the other accused is completed. He pointed out that by Judgment and Order dated 3rd February 2005 the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge convicted some of the accused. He pointed out that on 28th June 2004 an offence has been registered against the Applicant at Phaltan Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of the I.P.C. 5. I have considered the submissions. The fact remains that the Applicant was absconding. The allegation against the Applicant is that while he was absconding, one more offence under Section 395 has been registered against the Applicant. Moreover, some of the other accused persons have already been convicted by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge. 6. Considering the gravity of the offence and considering the aforesaid conduct of the Applicant it is not possible to take a view which is different from the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the Application. 7. Hence, Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE