: 1 : A-97-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.71 OF 2011 Sani Hiiraman Mohite & Anr. .. Applicants v/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents ......... Mr. Ganesh Gole for the applicants Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for State ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 faced Sessions trial in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Mangaon Dist. Raigad in Sessions Case No.15 of 2010 under Section 427, 395, 342 of Criminal Procedure Code apart from 3 other accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, Dist. Raigad accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the accused nos. 3 and 4 respectively by Judgment dated 13th December, 2009 under Section 457, 395, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentences for each offence separately. The present applicants have filed Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2011. In this appeal, the applicants have preferred this application for bail. : 2 : A-97-11=.doc 2. I have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants as also learned advocate Mr. Kondedeshmukh appearing on behalf of the respondent State. Looking to the facts of the case, it is necessary for the Court to ascertain whether the applicants have been duly identified. This PW-1 Kishore has identified 4 persons as and by way of dock identification and the reference to the present applicants is missing. He no doubt states that he attended the identification parade, however, his evidence as to who were identified is not very much clear. Apart from that, this witness has further stated that prior to TI parade, accused were brought at his home and at that time his family members were present. This evidence given by PW-1 Kishore if appreciated in the proper perspective will go to show that the prosecution has not complied with the minimum requirements of identification of the applicants qua the persons, who had chance to witness the incident. 3. As per the FIR, another person by name Sukumar was present at the time of the incident. The prosecution has not examined Mr. Sukumar. This would mean that only person who speaks about the incident and identification of the person is Kishore PW-1. As discussed above, evidence regarding identification of applicants falls short of requirement of law and case of the prosecution that applicant were : 3 : A-97-11=.doc involved in the incident is required to be seen with doubt and this conclusion would go in favour of applicants. 4. So far as the recovery is concerned, the prosecution alleges that there was recovery of air phone cord and a cash of Rs.500/- in the denomination of Rs.100/-. I have perused the evidence of the police officer through whom this recovery is sought to be proved. The said evidence is required to be seen with doubt. In my view, the applicants have made out a case for bail on the ground that the evidence placed before the Court cannot be accepted in a clearcut manner. In the circumstances mentioned aforesaid, applicants can be released on bail. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Bail Application filed by the present applicants is granted. Each of the applicant is hereby ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in like amount. Each of the applicant shall submit PR Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-. Each of the applicant shall report to the Roha Police Station on every 2nd Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till further orders. (ii) Application is disposed of accordingly. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)