1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3386 OF 2009 Mohammad Shakir Hasimali Sayyad....... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. Ganesh Gole adv. for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 09th September,2009. P. C.: 1. Heard. The present applicant has moved this application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. and seeking bail in C.R. No. I-309/08 for offence punishable under section 392, 170 read with 34 of IPC registered with Vartak Nagar police station, Thane. 2. According to the prosecution, the incident had taken place on 8-11-2008 at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning when the complainant had gone for a morning walk near Upavan lake. As per the FIR dated 8-11-2008 when the complainant was near Railadevi Mandir, two unknown persons on motor cycle had come at the place of the incident, one of the two persons got down from the motor cycle and went near the complainant and asked him as 2 to what is the time. When the complainant was looking at his watch, the person who had got down from the motor cycle snatched the golden chain from the neck of the complainant and sat on the rear side of the motor cycle and fled away. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that no offence under section 392 IPC could have been registered on the basis of the FIR and only a case of theft could have been registered. Section 390 IPC defines as to “when theft is robbery” and it postulates that in order to the committing of theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. Prima facie the material ingredient to constitute robbery when there is a theft is lacking. The applicant is in custody since December 2008. 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant realizing the infirmity in registration of the offence under section 392 of IPC a supplementary statement of the complainant came to be recorded after about three weeks i.e. on 27-11-2008 wherein for the first time the complainant had stated that the person who had allegedly snached the chain from the neck of the complainant had taken out a knife and by putting the complainant in fear of hurt, the golden chain was snatched. In that view of the matter, prima facie it does appear that the applicant cannot be said to have committed offence under section 392 of IPC. Hence I direct that the applicant be released on bail on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two local solvent sureties in the 3 like amount. The applicant shall attend Vartak Nagar police station, Thane once a week on every Saturday between 6 to 8 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)