1 Cri.A.5040.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5040 OF 2011 Issak Rajjak Sayyed, R/o Ringewadi, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.V.P.Latange,Advocate for Applicant. Shri.D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. ... CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 08.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The present applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No. I-17 of 2011 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, in regard to incident, which had taken place on 08.12.2010. The complainant Subhash was waiting at rickshaw stop, where the present applicant and co-accused invited him to seat in his car and drove him to Nevawas Phata on payment of Rs.50/-. After the complainant believed the word of the driver, 2 Cri.A.5040.11 complainant was subjected to robbery and ATM Card was snatched from him and moneys were withdrawn from ATM machine. One ring of gold made and one of silver were snatched from him. 3. Perusal of FIR goes to show that incident has lasted substantially for longtime and no doubt in the course of incident the present applicant was unknown to the complainant. However, his identify has been fixed by the Investigating Agency on 04.02.2011 by confronting him with present applicant. The complainant has identified the present applicant and co-accused and have attributed role to the respective persons. At the instance of present applicant there is recovery of Rs.25,000/-. The present applicant was subjected to identification parade on 17.04.2011 and he has been identified as a person, who was driver of the vehicle Tata INNOVA car. All this material clearly go to show that involvement of present applicant in the aforesaid crime is prima facie made out. Since the incident lasted for 3 Cri.A.5040.11 longtime, confrontation of the present applicant with complainant and trying to fix liability is a proper mode of investigation. No dispute can be made about it. The Court is informed that the present applicant had antecedents and in regard to other two offences he came to be arrested. 3. Prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The applicant took advantage of the belief with which complainant entered the car. But for such misrepresentation complainant would not boarded the said car. Allegations against the present applicant are serious. In my view, if the applicant is released on bail he will pressurize the complainant, who happens to be a person of ordinary living. It is also possibility that present applicant would abscond, and he would not appear before the Court for trial. In my view, this is not case in which bail can be granted. Hence, the application for bail is rejected. Sd/- [ R.Y.GANOO, J. ] MTK 4 Cri.A.5040.11