..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3184 OF 2008 Shivaji Yellappa Mane. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Nitin Sejpal, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th September, 2008. DATED : 17th September, 2008. DATED : 17th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.135 of 2008 of Trombay Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 392, 170, 420 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that Bansilal was travelling by bus to Mumbai along with jewellery valued at about Rs.49 lakhs. On the way two persons entered into the bus. They stated that they were policemen. One of them is the applicant. They enquired with Bansilal about the ..(2).. contents of the bag and told him that the bag is to be checked and he has to come to police station. On their say, Bansilal got down from the bus and accompanied them. First they sat in a rickshaw. After travelling for some distance, Bansilal was made to sit in another rickshaw. Thereafter, the two persons made him sit in a Scorpio car and later on in an Indica car. Instead of being taken to police station, he was taken to Lonavala. The complainant was assaulted. Then the complainant was robbed by the applicant with the help of two other accused. The bag containing jewellery was taken away from him. Thereafter those persons ran away. 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. ..(3).. 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. 5. Looking to the above facts and the fact that the applicant was in police force and he has misused his post and the other material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)