1appln-3120-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3120 of 2010 (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) Mrs Janvi Vishal Gurav and anr. .. .. .. Applicants. vs. The State of Maharashtra .. .. .. Respondent. Mr M.S.Mohite i/by K.R. Noniya and P. Y. Lubri, for the Applicants. Mr S. N. Gavade, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 16TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application preferred by both the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with C.R. No. 128 / 2010 registered with Kasturba Marg Police Station, Borivali (East), for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.. 2. According to the prosecution, wife of the complainant brought the jewellery worth more than Rs.3 lakh from the Bank locker and kept it in 2appln-3120-10 the cup-board of her husband, the present complainant. Jewellery was brought to home on 3.6.2010 and it was used for few days and on 9th June, 2010 it was kept in the box in the cup-board without locking the said cupboard. For the first time on 21.6.2010 it was found out that the jewellery box is missing. On 22.6.2010 a complaint was lodged against the unknown thief. 3. Admittedly, the present applicants are next door neighbors of the complainant and had acquaintance with the family of the complainant only for two to three months prior to the incident. Applicant No.1 was on visiting terms with the family of the complainant. Also, admittedly, there are other independent persons visiting the house of the complainant such as maid servant and driver in the employment of the complainant. 4. During the argument learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that according to the applicant No.1 only once she had entered the house of the complainant only on 10.6.2010 on the invitation by the mother of the complainant. That time mother of the complainant wanted help of applicant No.1 for grinding some spices as her mixer was not working. Applicant No.1 got the said work done and helped the mother, aged about 85 years. Prior to this revelation from applicant No.1 accused, there was statement of such 85 years old woman recorded by the I.O. In that statement, she did not mention regarding such specific visit of applicant No.1 as on 10.6.2010. Even after revelation from applicant No.1 there was no attempt on the part of the I.O. to counter check the said statement of the accused by recording additional 3appln-3120-10 statement of 85 years old woman, mother of the complainant. All the same, as the present position stands there is nothing in any of the statements of the witnesses as to on a specific date during the period from 9.6.2010 till 21.6.2010, either both the applicants or applicant No.1 had entered the house of the complainant for some work. The possibility of access to other persons in the house of the complainant cannot be ruled out as per own case of the prosecution. 5. Under the above circumstances and considering the time gap between keeping the ornaments in the cup-board on 9.6.2010 and noticing them missing on 21.6.2010, a present application can be allowed with certain directions to the applicants as to attendance to the concerned police station and assisting the investigation. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Criminal application No. 3120/2010 is allowed. (b) In the event of arrest of both the applicants in C.R. No. 128/2010 registered with Kasturba Marg Police Station, Borivali (East), they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/-each with one surety in the like amount each. © On availing the bail the applicants shall attend concerned police station once in every month on first Sunday between 10-00 a.m. to 12.00 noon till filing of the charge-sheet. 4appln-3120-10 (d) Present anticipatory bail order shall be effective till filing of the charge sheet and 15 days thereafter and on filing of such charge-sheet, the applicants shall apply for regular bail before the concerned Court. (e) 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. 6. Application is disposed of in terms of this order. (A.R.JOSHI,J)