FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2009 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr I.S.Thakur with Mr Raju Yamgar, for the applicant. Mrs M.H.Mhatre, APP for the respondent. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE,J CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE,J CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATED: 24.02.2009 DATED: 24.02.2009 DATED: 24.02.2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: Heard Mr Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs Mhatre, learned APP, for the respondent. This is the second application filed by the present applicant. His earlier application for bail was rejected by me on parity with Shivaji Yallappa Mane, whose application (Criminal Application No.3184 of 2008) was rejected by Smt. V.K.Tahilramani,J. vide order dated 17.9.2008. While rejecting his prayer for bail the following observations were made: "4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Shrikant @ Bunty Gajanan Gondhale and Santosh @ Bala Pundlik Kurle have been granted bail by this Court and the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused Shrikant @ Bunty Gajanan Gondhale and Santosh @ Bala Pundlik Kurle. First of all, it is seen that the present applicant was in the police force and he has misused his position in order to commit this offence. The above two accused persons who were granted bail did not belong to police force. It was the applicant who had made the complainant get down from the bus in which the complainant was travelling. The other two persons entered into the picture only when the complainant was made to sit in a Scorpio car and later on in an Indica car. It is the present applicant who made the complainant get down from the bus by giving a false pretext and he took the complainant to the place where the other accused persons were waiting in a car. Thus, it is seen that there is no parity with the other two co-accused who have been granted bail. In addition to this, the applicant is involved in another case of Mulund police station. The said case is under Section 392 of IPC." Shivaji Yallappa Mane was, however, granted bail vide order dated 15.10.2008 in Criminal Application No.3572 of 2008 by Smt. V.K.Tahilramani,J. In the order granting bail to Shivaji Yallappa Mane, Smt. V.K.Tahilramani,J. in paragraph 5 of the order made the following observations :- "5. Mr Thakur, the learned Advocate for the applicant, submitted that the statement of the victim shows that some time before 12:00 pm the victim Bansilal was in a bus at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, and he was made to get down from the bus by the applicant and another person. These persons made the applicant sit in an auto-rickshaw. At about 12:00 pm, they all had lunch in a hotel. Then the victim was taken towards Lonavala by these persons. At about 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm they again stopped at another hotel where they ate food. Then they proceeded towards Lonavala where Bansilal came to be robbed. However, the affidavit filed by the APP and the annexures thereto specially the statement of API Surekha Medhe shows that on the day of the incident the applicant had reported for duty between 11:15 am to 11:30 am at Mantralaya, Mumbai. The distance between Mantralaya and Vashi, Navi Mumbai, is approximately 40 kms. In such case, in view of the statement of API Surekha Medhe, on which the prosecution has placed great reliance, it does appear that the applicant could not have participated in the incident. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant." It is on the basis of this order passed by Smt.V.K.Tahilramani,J. granting bail to Shivaji Yallapa Mane, the present application for bail has been filed claiming parity. It is true that the role attributed and played by the present applicant and Shivaji Mane is similar. However, from bare perusal of the observations made in the order dated 15.12.2008, it is clear that the applicant therein (Shivaji Yallappa Mane) was granted bail having prima facie found him to be on duty between 11:15 am to 11:30 am at Mantralaya, and that the distance between Mantralaya and Vashi, New Mumbai, is approximately 40 kms. Hence, the learned Judge observed that Shivaji Mane could not have participated in the incident. Such is not the case of the present applicant. It is clear from the statement of the victim that the applicant actively participated in the actual incident and he was present at the scene of offence. There is no scope for doubting his presence at the scene of offence in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, there are two cases pending against the present applicant and in one of these cases he has been convicted for the offence under section 392, 341, 345 of IPC. In the circumstances, the application is rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)