[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1010 OF 2008 Mr.Shandrya Ramraya Kale ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Kunal Cheema i/b Santosh Tenhallikar Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 10, 2008 DATE : JULY 10, 2008 DATE : JULY 10, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No. 180 of 2007 of Vairag Police Station, Dist.Solapur. The said case is mainly under Section 395 of IPC. 3. The complainant has named the applicant in the FIR. Enquiry was made with the complainant whether the complainant would like to purchase gold at a cheaper rate. The complainant agreed to do so. Thereafter, the co-accused took the complainant and [-2-] others to Korphade. The co-accused introduced the present applicant and some other persons to the complainant. At that time, one of them closed the door and told the complainant to quickly take out money and take the gold. The complainant asked them to show them the gold. Whereupon all the persons took out knifes and other deadly weapons and pointed them at the neck of the complainant and other witnesses. Those persons took away Rs.1 lakh which the complainant was carrying in a bag. The jewellery on the body of his wife was also snatched away. The complainant has stated that one of the said persons was the applicant. Thus, it is seen that there is sufficient material against the applicant. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that co-accused Daddya has been released on bail and the case of the applicant is similar to that of Daddya. He has placed reliance on the order granting bail to co-accused Daddya. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge Solapur (Shri.S.P.Jagtap) has released the co-accused Daddya by order dated 15.2.2008. On perusal of the order, it is seen that there is not a single [-3-] discussion on the merits of the case. The order only states that the charge sheet has been filed and hence, bail was granted to the co-accused. As stated earlier there is no discussion at all on merits. Such an order, to my mind, is not a proper order. The learned APP states that the State intends filing an application for setting aside the said order. Looking to the role played by the applicant, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. 5. Application is rejected. The learned Judge shall not be influenced by any of the observations in this order, while deciding the trial. 6. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]