IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4104 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4104 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4104 OF 2007 Dhananjay Jairam Desai ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Mundargi with Mr. Chavan for the Applicant Mr.Saste for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 24th April, 2008. DATED : 24th April, 2008. DATED : 24th April, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicant is concerned in C.R.No.230 of 2000 of Borivli Police Station principally of Charge under Section 324 of Arms Act which got converted into Sessions Case No.686 of 2000. It appears that there was some infraction of the procedure in as much as the summons could not be served against the present applicant and ultimately the proclamation came to be issued and the present applicant, as per the record has surrendered. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge declined to grant bail. Hence this bail application. 2. In my view, in matter like this it is necessary to consider the record against the present applicant and if there is any material then -2- the question of circumstances as to how the proclamation could be issued etc are required to be gone into. The FIR is filed by Kotecha against unknown persons and that is how the identification parade was required to be conducted to fix the identity of the applicant and the parade memo shows that the identity of the present applicant could not be established at the hands of the witnesses as they could not identify the applicant. 3. As a result of this, the identify of the present applicant as the accused could not be fixed by the Investigating Agency. Learned Advocate Saste submitted that apart from the identification parade memo there is no material or discovery at the hands of the present applicant. If this is the position, there is no material against the present applicant and if this is so, the applicant has made out a case for bail irrespective of the fact that there has been some infraction as regards issuance of summons and other factors. It is required to be noted that the applicant has himself surrendered and that would also go to show the bonafide of the applicant. In my view, in the peculiar circumstances like this, the applicant has made out -3- a case for bail. Hence the order: ORDER i) It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail in Sessions Case No.686 of 2000 in the sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount. ii) The applicant to execute P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only). iii) The applicant will ascertain the next date from the concerned Court. Needless to mention that he will attend the court case from time to time. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)