1 81.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1481 OF 2004 Shri.Shivu Chandram Loni ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mr.Amit Sale for Applicant. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1. We have perused the order dated 13th October, 2005 as well as 17th April, 2007 rejecting the earlier two bail applications filed by the applicant. First bail application was rejected on merits. The Court, however, gave liberty to the applicant to renew the request for bail, if the appeal could not proceed for hearing within a period of three years’ from the date of the order. The applicant, without allowing the three years’ period to expire, moved another bail application which was justly rejected being premature. 2. Now, the applicant has filed this third bail application. The prayer for 2 81.11 bail is not on the argument of any changed circumstance but on the ground that the applicant has already undergone substantial part of the sentence period and it is unlikely that the appeal would reach for hearing in the near future. The applicant/appellant has undergone sentence only of around seven years of actual imprisonment. No doubt, if the applicant were to be released pre-maturely on expiry of 14 years of actual imprisonment or as per the eligibility under the concerned guidelines, it can be said that he has already completed 50% of the sentence period out of 14 years of actual imprisonment. Even so, in our opinion, the applicant should wait for some more time considering the fact situation of the present case. 3. Accordingly, we dispose of this application with liberty to renew the request for bail after expiry of one year from today. We say so because the appeals of convicts in jail have already been treated as expedited category of cases as per the present assignment. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)