1 BA-1222.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1222 OF 2011 {For Bail} Vivek Dwarkanath Shinge .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Rajiv Patil with Omkar Warange for the Applicant. Shri J.P. Kharge, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C: This is an application for bail by a person who had participated in a dacoity. Apart from the applicant's identification by the first informant at a test identification parade, a bracelet worth Rs.35,000/- was seized at the instance of the applicant. Loss of bracelet has been mentioned by the first informant in the FIR itself. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the recovery is doubtful, since the applicant is alleged to have stated that Vinayak had snatched the bracelet and the applicant received it from another accused Dinanath. It 2 BA-1222.11 is not necessary to comment upon the attempt of the I.O. to involve as many persons as possible. But the fact that bracelet was seized from the applicant and it was the one which was mentioned in the FIR shows prima facie the applicant's involvement in the incident. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, there were two incidents and in the second incident only 3-4 persons were alleged to have participated and therefore it cannot be said to be a dacoity. He submits that from the nature of the injuries sustained, which were also simple, Section 397 of the IPC would not be attracted. All the same, considering the fact that the applicant was identified by the first informant and the bracelet mentioned in the FIR has been seized at the instance of the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to bail. The application is rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)