:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2009 Maruti Bandu Bandgar .. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Jaydeep D.Mane for the applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2009. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2009. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This is the second application filed by the applicant for being released on bail on parity, in C.R.No.307 of 2008 of Mohol police station. The earlier application for bail (criminal application No.4057/2008) was rejected vide order dated 8.12.2008. The present application is based solely on the ground that the two other accused involved in this case have been subsequently granted bail by this court vide order dated 5.3.2009 in criminal application No.1015 of 2009. I have perused the said order dated 5.3.2009. The reasons for granting bail, as reflected in that order, read thus: "2. Applicants have been arrested in connection with the offence punishable under sections 395, 397, 365, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Charge-sheet has been filed. One other accused has been released on bail. Applicants have been identified in the identification parade. However, since the investigation is over, continued :2: :2: :2: detention of the applicants, in my view, is not necessary since the trial is not likely to commence for considerable long period of time." 3. There is no dispute that identification parade in the present case was not conducted at all though the learned Judge in the aforesaid order has so observed. It is also clear from the order dated 5.3.2009, that the order dated 8.12.2008, rejecting the earlier application of the present applicant bearing No.4057 of 2008, was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. The learned A.P.P. submits that when criminal application No.1015 of 2009 was granted, the learned A.P.P., who appeared in that application was not aware about the order passed in criminal application No.4057 of 2008, filed by the present applicant, nor the police were present when that application (criminal application No.1015 of 2009) was granted. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant this application on parity, apart from the fact that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the accused in criminal application No.1015 of 2009. Moreover, learned A.P.P. submits that one more offence has been registered at Umarga police station against the present applicant. Keeping that in view and considering that the earlier order dated 8.12.2008, rejecting criminal application No.4057 of 2008, was passed on merits this application is rejected. :3: :3: :3: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)