abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2008 Raj @ Naseem Riyajul Shaikh .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.N.D. Deboo for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks bail in connection with the crime registered with Malad Police Station under C.R. No.215/2007 for the offence punishable under sections 422, 342, 392, 394, 397 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant was working as a maid servant in the house of Mrs.Shivli Samar Bhoumik who resides in room No.3, - 2 - Hari Krupa Society, Dahisar (W), Mumbai. On 14th April 2007 in the afternoon, the applicant and three other persons posing themselves as cable repairers entered the house of Shivli on the pretext of doing cable repair work. Thereafter they took out a pistol/ revolver and demanded all valuables. They committed a robbery and took away a gold chain, 2 gold bangles, 1 bracelet, 1 Nokia mobile phone and 1 Reliance mobile phone and cash of Rs.15,000/-. The complainant did not know their names but stated that she would be able to identify them. The applicant and other accused were arrested. Identification parade was held and the applicant was identified by the complainant as well as by Shivli, the owner. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the guidelines prescribed by the High Court under the Criminal Manual regarding conducting of the identification parade were not followed and therefore the applicant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and entitled to an acquittal. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the guidelines have been followed and there have been no breach. 5. It would not be appropriate at this stage to consider whether the guidelines have been followed strictly or substantially. It does appear that there is - 3 - substantial compliance of the guidelines. What benefits, if any, the applicant would be entitled to get on account of the alleged breach of the guidelines is a matter which would be decided at the trial. At this stage, it needs to be stated that the applicant has been identified both by the complainant as well as the owner. Thus, there is a prima facie evidence connecting the applicant to the crime. 6. The offence committed is serious and is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for life or R.I. upto 10 years. Considering the gravity of the offence and also taking into consideration the possibility of the applicant repeating the offence in the event of his release on bail, as submitted by the learned A.P.P., this is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Hence, application for bail is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)