IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5168 OF 2010 Pandit @ Lalit Jagdish Tiwari .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.B.J.Sarwade for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Javeri APP for the State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 25th JANUARY, 2011. P.C.: 1. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in C.R.No.I-356 of 2009 registered at Manikpur police station, District Thane for the offence punishable under section 394, 395, 412 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3, 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 3.11.2009 eight unknown persons committed dacoity from the premises of Shakti complex of electronics goods worth more than Rs.82 Lakhs. At the time of commission of the offence, some of the dacoites were armed with fire arms. They had threatened watchman - Arvind Kumar Misra and had also 1 beaten him to keep quiet. During the investigation some of the stolen property was found with some traders at Crawford Market and from there it was revealed as to how they had received the goods from different persons. During the investigation number of persons were arrested including the eight persons who had allegedly committed dacoity. From each of them huge quantity of stolen goods were recovered. From the present applicant 63 mobile handsets were recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that five other accused persons, who were allegedly involved in committing dacoity, have been granted bail by this court by different orders and on the principle of parity, the present applicant be also granted bail. Taking into consideration huge recovery from other accused, who were granted bail and recovery from the present applicant, his case cannot be distinguished from the other accused, who were granted bail. 3. However, it needs to be noted that after the arrest of accused persons, who had allegedly participated in dacoity, Senior Police Inspector - Ashok Pawar of Manikpur police station called the sole eye witness - Arvind Kumar Misra, the watchman, at the police station 2 and showed all the accused persons to him and recorded his statement as to indicate that he identified those culprits. It is surprising, rather shocking, to note that the Senior Police Inspector does not know that when the case is registered against unknown persons on a report lodged by the eye witness, it would be necessary to hold test identification parade through some Executive Magistrate and if the accused persons are identified during test identification parade held by the Magistrate, that would provide strong corroborative evidence at the time of trial. The courts have consistently held that when case is registered against unknown persons, suspects should not be shown to eye witnesses by the police before T.I.Parade and if they are shown to the witnesses before T.I.Parade, no importance can be given to identification by them either in T.I.Parade or during the trial. The Police Inspector - Pawar by showing all accused persons to the eye witness - Arvind Misra at police station has actually damaged the valuable evidence which could be available to the prosecution to prove the offence against said accused persons. This was one reason why the other accused persons were granted bail by this court. 3 4. For the aforesaid reasons the present applicant be also released on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with prosecution case and shall report to Manikpur police station on every Sunday between 10 am to 1 pm till the trial is over. The application stands disposed of. 5. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Thane Rural for appropriate action. (J.H. BHATIA, J) 4