1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.733 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.666 OF 2009 Sayyed Ahmed Farid Khan @ Akkal Mulla ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.R.Chitnis, Sr.Advocate i/b. Nitin Sejpal and Pooja Bhojne for Applicant Mr.Shailesh More, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 10TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.This application for bail is filed by one of the 7 accused has been convicted under Sections 398, 427 r.w. Section 34 of the I.P.C and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2.The accused No.1 has been refused bail by this Court. Accused No.2 has been granted bail. The Appeal has been expedited. The applicant is accused No.6 in the trial 2 Court. 3.The prosecution case is upon the complaint of one Chandrasen Nalwaya who was the Manager in a shop at Vile Parle when the incident took place on 26 th September 2005. It has been his complaint and his deposition that 5 to 6 persons armed with choppers and revolvers came into the shop. One person held the chopper at his throat and asked for the keys of the drawer. He abused him. One more person who came with him had a revolver. Other persons went and searched other portions of the shop. Then the owner of the shop came to the shop. Some of them ran away and one of them was apprehended. He had the chopper. He was apprehended and the public beat him up. The chopper has been recovered. He is accused No.1 who has been refused bail. 4.The complainant has given the description of all the persons. That fact is mentioned in paragraph 2 of his evidence. I have gone through the proforma complaint. It does mention the description of various persons. The complaint has identified 2 of the other persons in an T.I.P. That is not the applicant herein. The applicant was arrested on 16 th March 2006, about 6 months after the complaint was filed. The complainant s evidence in paragraph 4 shows that the complainant identified him 3 as one of the culprits in the police station when the police called him in the police station. There has been no T.I.P conducted. 5.P.W.2 has identified accused No.2 in the T.I.P and 2 other accused. His deposition shows that he did not remember their face. Hence, it is not clearly shown whether this applicant was identified by P.W.2. 6.The applicant has cases under 2 other C.Rs filed against him under Sections 395 and 397 of the I.P.C. There has been no conviction of the applicant. The applicant s Advocate has stated that he has been in custody since 16 th March 2006. 7.The applicant has been convicted along with accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 for offences under Section 395 read with Section 398 of the I.P.C. They have been sentenced to suffer R.I for 7 years. They have already served sentence of 3½ years. The Appeal has been expedited. However, since the Appeal is of 2009 it is not likely to be taken up at an early date. The applicant shall, therefore, have to be released on bail pending the Appeal. 8.The applicant shall be released on bail in a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or 2 sureties in like amount. 4 9.The applicant shall report to Santacruz Police Station on 1 st of each month until the disposal of the Appeal. 10.Mr. Chitnis, on behalf of the applicant, relied upon 2 totally irrelevant cases to show that any statement made by the accused to the Police officer is not admissible and tried to show the requirement of a T.I.P. Since they are irrelevant they need not be adverted. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)