Mohd. Sayed Mohd. Yasin Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State-respondent no.1 and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

Perused the application and material available on record.

The applicant is seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.read Section 21 (4) Maharashtra Control Organised Crime Syndicate Act ("the M.C.O.C. Act" short) C.R. No.135 2002 registered Bund Garden Police Station, Pune offence punishable Sections 120B, 216, 221, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 263A, 403, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 109 I.P.C. Sections 3 (1) (i), 3 (1) (ii), 3 (2), 3 (4), 3 (5), 4 24 ( 2 ) M.C.O.C.Act, 1999 and Sections 7, 12 and 13 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1988.

I must mention that the identical application Criminal Application No. 4325 2004 present applicant Mohd. before Sayed. Mohd Yasin Shaikh Court withdrawal

17.7.2007 motion learned counsel the applicant the same was allowed to be withdrawn without keeping any reservation.

Now withdrawal application within another months application moved. The present learned counsel applicant submits co-accused persons involved a granted

8.12.2006,

12.5.2006

orders according passed He, February, 2007 June,

2007. thus, submits parity grounds applicant entitled bail. He take me through the merits matter to urge that client is entitled for bail.

In my considered view, once the application having withdrawn bail, without keeping ( 3 ) reservation, another application maintainable, unless there is change is in circumstance.

So far as the orders granting bail to co-accused concerned. All orders available Criminal Application No. 4325 2004 withdrawn. It was, therefore, applicant orders merits. Having withdrwn earlier application without reservation, considered view, second application absence change circumstances present application is not maintainable. Same is, therefore, rejected. (V.C. DAGA,J.) DAGA,J.) (V.C.

(V.C. DAGA,J.)