1 Appln 4437-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4437 OF 2010 Rajesh Suresh Devkule & anr. ..Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Amit Nalawade, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 29TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. . This is an application for bail by persons, who have been charge sheeted for their alleged involvement in offence of dacoity punishable under Sections 395, 397, 492 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Section 3(25) of the Arms Act registered as Crime No.378 of 2007 at MRA Police Station, Mumbai. 2. The offence was committed on 29th December, 2007. Since there was no progress 2 Appln 4437-10 in investigation, a final report was first submitted. Thereafter, applicants involvement in crime was disclosed during the course of investigation in some other investigation. On 13 & 17th, the applicants were put to Test Identification Parade. They were identified by the witnesses. The learned Counsel for the applicants first submits that the dates mentioned in Memo of Identification Parade and Panchnama are different. Next, he submits that in the FIR, it has been mentioned that miscreants had covered their faces with handkerchiefs but they were not so paraded at Test Identification Parade. He further submits that statement of police officer and Vinod Nag, who had rescued victim, who had been locked up in the bath room at the time of incident, were not recorded. As to these discrepancies in the date of Test Identification Parade, the trial Judge would undoubtedly consider as also whether culprits had their faces covered or not, since it is a 3 Appln 4437-10 matter of appreciation of evidence. Non examination of Vinod Nag or police officer, who rescued the informant may not have any bearing on the matter since by the time these witnesses arrived miscreants must have already left. 3. In view of the fact that the applicants were identified at Test Identification Parade by witnesses, they are not entitled to bail. 4. Criminal Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)