IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6884 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.6884 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.6884 OF 2005 Nitin @ Bapu Dashrath Dangat. ... Applicant. Versus. State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Shri Ganesh Sovani for the Applicant. Ms.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. : ABHAY S. OKA, J. : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st October, 2005. : 21st October, 2005. : 21st October, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Offence has been registered under section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code along with section 3(25) and 4(25) of the Arms Act. The Apex Court has held that gravity of the allegations and need for custodial interrogation are the only factors which are required to be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. The submission of the Advocate for the Applicant is that the name of the Applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. and that his name has been added in one of the remand reports is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail especially when there is enough material on record to show involvement of the Applicant at this stage. The co-accused were found in possession of number of weapons by the Police. Considering the material on record to show the complicity of the Applicant, there is no reason to take a different view : 2 : 2 : 2 : from the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. The Application is rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.