1appln-630-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 630 of 2010 Santosh Nagappa Bisnal. .. Applicant. versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr S. B. Desai, for the Applicant. Mr Y. M. Nakhawa, A.P.P.,for the State. ------ CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 3RD AUGUST, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant today. Also, arguments were heard on the earlier date i.e.on 9.7.2010. The case, as alleged against the applicant is detailed in the earlier order passed by this Court dated 9.7.2010. 2. In short, it can be summarized that on 15.9.2009 in 2appln-630-10 the evening time, the complainant, a young woman, was proceeding towards her home after her daily work. She requested for lift and present applicant then driving a tempo gave her life. However, at some distance halted vehicle, snatched her money purse and other articles. Immediately, the complaint was lodged and on the next day the applicant was arrested. On earlier date, during the arguments, it was made known to the Court, by pointing out to the statement of the complainant that on 16.9.2009 itself she was shown the tempo. However, the seizure panchnama was recorded by the police on 22.9.2009. Noticing such situation directions were given by the earlier Bench when the matter was seized with the Hon’ble Shri D.G.Karnik,J. By that time, temporary bail was granted by the said Court vide order dated 22.2.2010. Today, when the matter is taken up for further arguments and to see what is the report of the Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural), learned A.P.P. drawn attention of this Court towards said report dated 13.7.2010. The report mentions that, in fact, the tempo was seized on the same day when the present applicant accused was arrested and it was brought to Police Station on 16.9.2009. However, the concerned 3appln-630-10 police constable did not prepare the seizure panchnama then and there. However, subsequently, did it on 22.9.2009. For such dereliction of duty by Police Head Constable, appropriate departmental inquiry has been started by the Superintendent of Police (Rural) Pune and said Head Constable has been fined for Rs.500/-. For other similar dereliction of duties on earlier two occasions also same Head Constable was fined for Rs.100/- each. As such, prima facie on going through the said report of S.P.Pune (Rural), the discrepancy first brought to the notice of the Court regarding date of seizure of the tempo is apparently clarified. 3. Today, during the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that even according to the first informant – woman, she received back her mobile instrument on 16.9.2009. When asked, as to where is statement to that effect, the learned Advocate produced certified true copy of the examination-in-chief of the complainant recorded on 23.2.2010. Even reading the contents of paragraph 3 of the said examination-in-chief, there is nothing to ascertain that she received the mobile instrument on 16.9.2009. What she has 4appln-630-10 mentioned that she received the mobile back from the Police Station. In fact, on the earlier date and also till production of such certified copy of the evidence of complainant before this Court, it was not made aware to the Court that the trial is already started and recording of evidence of the complainant is already over by 23.2.2010. Even the learned A.P.P.for the State could not throw light on this factual position though the earlier Bench and this Bench asked for the report from the Investigating Officer and the S.P. Pune (R) on different issues. 4. All the same, considering that the matter is already started for recording of the evidence and even the evidence of P.W.1 is over and considering that it would be a question of appreciation of evidence whether or not prima facie material against the applicant is incriminating so as to ascertain the charges, it would not be in the fitness of situation to continue the temporary bail granted on 22.2.2010. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Bail application is rejected. (b) Earlier interim bail order dated 22.2.2010 stands vacated forthwith. (c) Appropriate process shall be issued 5appln-630-10 by the concerned Sessions/Trial for securing the presence of the applicant by issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant. (d) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. Application is accordingly disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J)