IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2008 Vikas Vijay Gaikwad. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. R.Sathyanarayanan for the applicant. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 22nd April 2008. DATED: 22nd April 2008. DATED: 22nd April 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused record. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.134/2007 registered with Khadki Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under section 395 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. After suffering adverse order dated 17th December, 2007 at the hands of the Adhoc Sessions Judge, Pune, the applicant has preferred the present application to seek bail. 4. Having heard rival parties, the trial Court has categorically given reasons for not granting bail in favour of the applicant. The relevant portion of the order of the trial Court dated 17th October, 2007 reads as under: "8. Even as is clear in the complaint it is specifically stated that immediately after the incident three persons were caught and the present applicant was one of them and even as is clear very specific role is attributed to the present applicant. Even as is further clear the key of the vehicle by which the accused had been there at the spot has been seized from the applicant. Then as is clear in the complaint it appear to have been mentioned that three persons had entered the house, two had run away and three persons were caught on the spot immediately and two were caught afterwards. Then so far as the fact that the present applicant Vikas Gaiwkar is stated to have been keeping watch from the terrace, it was argued on behalf of the prosecution that accused/ applicant is not resident of Yerwada and he is resident of Sangvi and he was proceeding from infront of the spot and noticed crowd there, and had been there and was caught by the people since he was stranger to them and they assume him to be amongst the robbers. ..... ..... ..... 13. Even looking to the serious nature of the offence charged against the accused, and the manner in which it is committed there is possibility of accused being absconding or repeating the crime after release on bail and even the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence also appear to be well founded. In all such circumstances, I do not feel that this is a fit case in which the accused can be released on bail." 5. Having seen the findings recorded, in the light of the facts emerging on record, no case is made out to take any contrary view. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE