1 APPA.1489-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1489 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 207 OF 2008 Mr. Kailas Govind Dighe & Anr. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. -- Mr. S.K. Shinde, APP for the Applicants. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the State. -- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. MARCH 10, 2011. P.C.: 1 We have heard Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicants(Orig.Accused Nos.3 and 5). They pray for being released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2008. Accused-Kailas Dighe had filed Criminal Application No.1074 of 2009 and the same was rejected by us on 24.09.2009, and therefore, this application is directed to be listed before us by the regular Division Bench. 2 APPA.1489-2010 2 In Criminal Application No.187 of 2009 filed in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2008 the plea for bail by other two accused Ananda and his son Vilas (accused nos.2 and 4) was turned down by this court as per the order dated 18.3.2009 and therefore S.L.P. (Crl) No.5915 of 2009 was filed before the Supreme Court. By the order dated 27.09.2010, the Supreme Court was pleased to release the two accused i.e. Ananda Dighe and his son (not the present applicant) on bail and hence this fresh application for bail on the ground of parity. Therefore, the only question which is required to be considered is whether the applicants can be released solely on the ground of parity. The order passed by the Supreme Court on 27.9.2010 releasing the accused/petitioners on bail reads thus: “ After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we grant bail to the petitioners to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The special leave petition is disposed of.” 3 It is thus clear that the Supreme Court has not set out the reasons for Ananda Dighe and Vilas Dighe being released on bail. In our order dated 24.09.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1074 of 2009 filed 3 APPA.1489-2010 by Kailas Dighe the present applicant, we have set out reasons and more particularly in para-5 of the said order, which indicate that we had rejected the bail on merits. As of now there is no change in the circumstances and in our considered view the ground of parity claimed by the applicant, on the basis of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 27.09.2010, cannot be claimed in such a case. 4 Hence, the application is rejected. (U. D. SALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)