1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1080 OF 2010 Ganesh Taktya Kale ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Mr.B.N.Gadegaonkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr.P.P.More, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J DATE : 12th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.B.N. Gadegaonkar, learned counsel for applicant and Mr.P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.121/2009 registered with police station, Hingoli (City), Dist.Hingoli for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 and 27 of Arms Act, since applicant 2 was arrested thereunder on 19th November, 2009 and he is in judicial custody presently. 3. It appears that offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by complainant namely Rameshchandra Savarmal Bagdiya on 18th July, 2009 in respect of occurrence of incident on 17th July, 2009 alleging that during the night between 17th July, 2009 and 18th July, 2009, when he was asleep in house at about 1 a.m. on 18th July, 2009, about 6 persons who had worn black colour clothes and were armed with knife and Jambias, entered into house and after entering into room they put off the lights and threatened the complainant to keep quiet and thereafter opened the doors of both Almirahs room in bedroom and committed dacoity of silver and golden jewelry as well as took away Mangalsutra of his wife and gold bangals from the hands of the wife and thereafter fled away. He gave the list of robbed articles amounting to Rs.8,75,800/- in the said incident. 4. On the aforesaid background, learned counsel for applicant urged that admittedly the complaint was 3 lodged against unknown persons and it is reflected in the F.I.R. that the robbers after entering into the bed-room put off the lights. Moreover, learned counsel for applicant also pointed out from the statement of watchmen namely Sheshrao that faces of robbers were covered by hankerchief and he could not see them. On the said background, learned counsel for applicant canvased that the alleged identification of the complainant by the said watchman comes under suspicion. Apparently, there is substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. Besides that, learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out that no criminal background of applicant has been putforth by prosecution although it is alleged that she is alleged offender. 6. Considering facts and circumstances and after considering the position that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be 4 enlarged on bail, but on imposing certain conditions upon him as mentioned hereinbelow. 7. In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that applicant-Ganesh Taktya Kale be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.121/2009 registered with police station Hingoli (city), Dist.Hingoli, on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and on executing the P.R. bond in the like amount on the following conditions :- (a) Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and shall not influence upon the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. (b) Applicant shall not leave the limits of District Hingoli till the conclusion of trial without prior permission of the concerned Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri1080.10