1 Appln 3831-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3831 OF 2010 Santosh Tatyaba Ghadge ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Niteen Pradhan i/b.Ms S.D.Khot & Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. . The applicant who has been arrested and in custody since December, 2009 in connection with the dacoity on a tourist bus on the night of 3rd December, 2009 seeks enlargement on bail. The bus left Kolhapur for Mumbai. The bus had facility of locker where the passengers could put their valuables. Some persons carrying on courier services used to regularly travel by this bus and used to carry cash and valuables by the said bus. 2 Appln 3831-10 After mid night, miscreants were also travelling as passengers in the bus took charge of the bus by banging into the driver s cabin. They pointed to two persons, who were carrying valuables and then robbed those persons of cash and another valuables worth Rs.19,07,000/-. They brandished fire arms while committing this dacoity. They then took the bus away from Highway and broke its head lamps and decamped with the booty. The driver managed to take bus to nearby inter section of the road and from there managed to contact police. On report of one Vijay Bapu Bobade, who had been robbed of cash worth Rs. 12,00,000/- and valuables worth Rs.50,000/- an offence was registered. 2. In the course of investigation, police arrested the applicant. A sum of Rs. 44,19,490/- and three ladies Gold rings worth Rs.30,000/- have been recovered from the applicant, pursuant to two statements made on 3 Appln 3831-10 12th & 19th December, 2009. The applicant was also identified at Test Identification Parade where he was identified by two drivers but not by the cleaner. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that the evidence of identification has to be discarded because the witnesses have stated that the applicant was wearing mask and therefore, if the applicant had covered his face his identification by two drivers become suspicious. He next submitted that if the total amount which was stolen was only Rs. 19,07,000/- recovery of cash and valuables worth Rs.44,19,490/- is not explicable and therefore, applicants ought to be admitted to bail. He also claims bail on the ground of parity with Satish Sudhakar Dighe in Criminal Application No.1443/2010. 4. Now first, there is no question of parity, since nothing had been recovered 4 Appln 3831-10 except two mobiles and Scorpio Jeep from Satish, whereas from the applicant huge amount of Rs.44,19,490/- and three Gold rings have been recovered which police could not have been planted. Since at this stage the applicant has not claimed that amount or explained possession of that amount, though it is in excess of amount which is stated to have been lost, applicant's complicity cannot be cleared from the doubt. 5. For the question as to whether the identification of the applicant by two drivers when the applicant was allegedly masked should be accepted or not, the best Judge would be the trial Judge, who would decide whether the applicant, though masked could have been identified by the witnesses. A person's covering face partially does not necessarily result in a total camouflage which may prevent witnesses from identifying miscreants. In any case, this is in the area of the appreciation 5 Appln 3831-10 of evidence. 6. In view of this, applicant is not entitled to bail. Criminal Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)