Sangeeta @ Geeta @ Ruksana W/O Anand Pancholi v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AUG:28873 {1} 985 sr.no..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2138 OF 2024 Sangeeta @ Geeta @ Ruksana W/o Anand Pancholi ....Applicant

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent .....

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Mahesh P. Kale APP for Respondents: Mr. V.S. Badakh.

CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATE : 6TH DECEMBER, 2024.

P.C. :- 1.

This is successive bail application of the applicant/accused. Mr. Kale, learned advocate for applicant submits this Court rejected previous bail application of the applicant on 5th October, 2023. Since then, there is no progress in the trial. He would further submits that, meanwhile, co-accused Shaikh Sameer @ Bhorya has been released on bail by order of Sessions Court. He would submit that in view of the release of accused No.4 - Shaikh Sameer, the case of applicant needs to be considered for release on the ground of parity. 2.

It is apparent that the Sessions Court granted bail to accused No.4 Shaikh Sameer observing that other two accused persons, namely, Rajendra Raskatla and Shaikh Sameer have been released on bail, who had similar role. It is therefore clear that release of accused No.4 is on

{2} 985 sr.no..odt the ground of parity.

3.

If the role of the applicant is considered in comparison to the accused who are already released on bail, it can be observed that applicant's role is not comparable with accused who are already released on bail. This Court, while rejecting plea of applicant for grant of bail specifically observed that applicant was in the company of person who had actually kidnapped the child till handing over the child to the witness. She has received monetary benefits out of the transaction from accused Shravani Padala and Ranjitprasad Melam. Complicity of applicant in commission of offence for monetary benefit is writ large. Even otherwise, there is no substantive change in circumstance by which applicant's successive application can be entertained. It is trite that only when there is subsequent change in the circumstances, the successive bail application can be entertained. No such substantive change is brought to the notice of this court. Hence, the application stands rejected. [S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] grt/-