1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1912 of 2010 Mohd. Isa MOhd. Yasin ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Nandura, Dist. Buldhana. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.J.Khan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 22 nd Decem ber , 2010 . Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in Crime NO. 80/2009 registered with Police Station, Nandura, Dist. Buldhana for the offences punisahble under Section 395, 412 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. Learned Advocate for the applicant invited my attention to the report dated 02/8/2009 and submitted that there are no allegations against the application. The applicant is also not alleged to have used any criminal force nor he was in possession of any weapon. The only material against the applicant is that the applicant has sold certain electronic items. Learned Advocate further submitted that the applicant is resident of Aurangabad and he is Photographer by profession. According to the learned Advocate, as there is no material against the applicant, he be released on bail. He submitted that the applicant is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Learned Advocate for the applicant lastly submitted that the other accused persons are released on bail and seeks release of the 2 applicant on the ground of parity. Per contra, learned APP for the State has filed the reply and strongly opposed the application on the ground that the offences are serious. He invited my attention to the material against the applicant. It is stated that the applicant had purchased some electronic items and sold them to other persons. Learned APP further submitted that the applicant who is photographer by profession, was dealing in sell and purchase of electronic items illegally. He further submitted that a false story is put up by the applicant that the accused told him that these articles are of rejected lot and he will get those articles at a lesser price and there was no bills issued for the said transaction. He further submitted that no prudent man will purchase such electronic item, without any bill or invoice. Learned APP further submitted that the main accused are absconding and expressed an apprehension that if the present applicant is released on bail, he will also abscond and will not be available for the trial. In view of the material against the applicant, learned APP has prayed for rejection of the application. In view of above, I find considerable merit in the submissions of learned APP. The apprehension expressed by learned APP that the applicant will abscond and hamper the trial is justifiable. In view of the material against the applicant, in my opinion this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail even on the ground of parity, as claimed by learned Advocate for the applicant. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE Diwale