IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2118 OF 2009 Lalji Dongare Gujrathi (Chavan) and Anr. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent --- Shri Kuldeep S. Patil for Applicants Mrs. N.N. Mhatre APP for the State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 31ST JULY, 2009 P.C. 1. This is a second application for bail. The first application was rejected by this Court by order dated 30th January, 2009. This Court while rejecting the said application, made the following observation: “The Applicant was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 396 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and other related offences. The Applicant had committed dacoity and in that process, one person was died. The jweler had identified the present Applicant and has stated that he had sold the ornaments, which were stolen in the said dacoity.” 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the copy of the identification parade was not given to the Applicant along with the chargesheet and that the copy of the identification parade was directly sent to the Court. He submitted that after the application for bail was rejected by this Court, he applied for copy of the identification parade and he learnt that the applicant had not been identified by the Complainant in the said identification parade. He submitted, therefore, there was no evidence to show that the Applicant was present in the house when the offence was committed. He further submitted that the alleged ornaments which were recovered at his instanced also were not identified by the Complainant. This fact is not denied by the Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 3. In view of this new circumstance which is now brought on notice of this Court, therefore, in my view, the Applicant would be entitled to be released on bail since the only ground on which the bail was refused was that he was identified in the identification parade. Since this is a factually incorrect fact as it is evident from the memorandum of panchnama which is now produced by the learned Counsel for the Applicant. The Applicant hass made out the case for grant of bail. Apart from that, the Applicant is not an habitual offender and there are no antecedents against him in the pending cases. 4. The Applicant, under these circumstances, be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station twice in a week. V.M. KANADE J.