1 Cri.Appln.No.292/2011 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.292/2011 (Ashok @ Shakal s/o Lal Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manjusha Nayan, Adv. for applicant; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 9 th February, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) Since notice was issued, learned APP is equipped with the papers of investigation. 3) The applicant/accused, in custody from 17.9.2010, for an offence under Section 395 of IPC in connection with Crime No. 136/2010 registered at Gondhi Police Station, Jalna, seeks release on bail. 4) On 9.7.2010, the complainant, a field officer of the finance company, while returning with cash of Rs.2,50,000/- on motor-cycle, was intercepted by four persons on two different motor-cycles and they dashed him, snatched the bag containing the currency notes, splashed chilly powder and decamped. 5) The accused/applicant was arrested, he 2 Cri.Appln.No.292/2011 was put under identification parade, he has been identified by the complainant. Recovery of Rs.20,000/- is made from the accused/applicant. 6) The learned Counsel submits, there is no eye-witness to the events. The complainant could not, due to spatter of the chilly powder, be able to locate identity of the offenders and hence T.I. parade looses its significance and importance. The Counsel also submits the applicant is in custody since long, charge sheet is filed and therefore he deserves to be released on bail. 7) At this stage of the matter, deficiencies in T.I. parade will not be germinating to provide a clean chit/slit to the accused/applicant, as he is already benedicted with identical crime. That apart, identification by the complainant was feasible as the operation of chilly was subsequent to snatching of the bag in the earlier movements. It was possible for the complainant to interact and know their identity. Consequently, no merit in the bail application, it is rejected. Observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/