IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.406 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.406 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.406 OF 2008 Sangatsingh Ajmersingh Kalyani ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.P.B.Shah for the Applicant Ms.Jhaveri for the Respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 24th April, 2008. DATED : 24th April, 2008. DATED : 24th April, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicant is arrested on 12.8.2007 in connection with C.R.No.151 of 2007 of Satara City Police Station under Section 399, 307, 400, 402, 353 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. FIR came to be filed by one Rajesh. Reading of the said FIR would show that the news regarding attempt to break open Darlesha Jewellers came to the knowledge of the police and hot pursuit was conducted by the concerned police department, and in the process of running away, the applicant and other accused who were travelling in the vehicle i.e. car indulged in various attempts to dash the persons who came in the midst of their running away. FIR filed by -2- Rajesh would go to show that in the process of running away many offences have been committed by the present applicant along with others particularly when the car was being driven in reckless manner. The applicant has been arrested on 12.8.2007 and a Katiyar came to be seized from his person soon after the arrest. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that principle attempt was of an attempt to break open the shop and nothing more than that. According to Mr. Shah the only material available against the present applicant is the statement of the co-accused Mr. Gogale and nothing beyond that. According to Mr. Shah this is a fit case for bail, and that the applicant is languishing in custody for more than eight months. 3. After having considered the record, it is clear that the applicant along with other indulged in an attempt to break open the jewellery shop and thereafter with a view to escape proceeded in a car and tried to avoid the arrest, but were unsuccessful and came to be arrested at later point of time. After having considered the entire record -3- it would be difficult to accept the arguments of learned Advocate Mr. Shah that there is no involvement of the present applicant in the entire incident which commenced from the point of attempt to break open the shop till the applicant and co-accused managed to run away at Saidapur Phatak. As a result of the hot pursuit conducted by the police department to arrest the applicant and others the chances of false implication of the present applicant are ruled out. 3. In my view, the allegations against the applicant are serious and are against his case and those allegations dis-entitle him form seeking the order of bail. It is true that the applicant is in custody for last eight months. However, that by itself cannot be the ground to release the applicant on bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations made and as such I am inclined to reject the application for bail as, if the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the first place he would not make himself available for trial and that there is likelihood that the witnesses involved in the matter will be tampered. Hence the application will have to be rejected. -4- Hence the order. ORDER . Application for bail is rejected. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)