( 1 ) cria4842.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4842 of 2011 Ramdas @ Banti Anna (Papya) Gaikwad .. Applicant Age. 23 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Station Road, Near Kadari Hospital, Dhule, Tal. & Dist. Dhule. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 07.12.2011 P.C. :- 1. The applicant is arrested in Crime No. 81 of 2011 (i.e. R.C.C. No. 629 of 2011, pending before J.M.F.C., Dhule) for the offences punishable under sections 395, 323, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the F.I.R. goes to indicate that the assailants who were responsible for the incident of 16.06.2011 as regards decoity at the shop premises of Ajay Mandgulkar (complainant), were unknown to him. ( 2 ) cria4842.11 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the police have neither conducted identification parade, nor the applicant is confronted with the complainant or any other witnesses, on whose statements reliance is placed. Learned advocate for the applicant also submitted that there is no recovery or discovery at the instance of this applicant. Learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Wagh could not dispute this statement. Hence, result is that the identity of present applicant is not confirmed in the course of investigation. This is against the interest of the prosecution. 2. The investigating agency has recorded statements of various persons in the first instance and thereafter supplementary statements are recorded. In the said supplementary statements, said persons while rendering statements have stated that they came to know about the names of the assailants including present applicant and thereafter the incident is narrated by levelling ( 3 ) cria4842.11 allegations against each person. These supplementary statements were relied upon by the learned A.P.P. for the State to contend that these witnesses have named assailants and their role is made out. I do not agree with the submissions because the very F.I.R. indicates that all the assailants were unknown to him. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Wagh took me through the end portion of the F.I.R., where the complainant has said that one person, by name, Banti Papya had entered the shop along with five other persons. In my view this by itself is not sufficient to say that present applicant was involved in the occurrence. Reference to the person, by name, Banti Papya is very general. If this was the position, it was necessary for the investigating agency to fix the identity of present applicant as one who was referred by the complainant, by name, Banti Papya. In view of above, the prosecution has not been able to establish link between present applicant and the crime alleged against him. Hence, he would be entitled to bail. Hence, the ( 4 ) cria4842.11 following order is passed :- 3. Application for bail is granted. The applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 81 of 2011, registered with Deopur Police Station, Dist. Dhule, in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one surety in like amount. He shall execute P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). After release, the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every Monday between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till evidence of material witnesses of the prosecution is recorded. [R.Y. GANOO, J.] snk/2011/DEC11/cria4842.11