((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.139 OF 2009 Kamlesh Parmanand Karmavat Applicant versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Ram Upadhay i/by Law Competere Consultus for the applicant. A.T.Javeri, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th March 2009 PC : 1. This is an application by accused no.5 for grant of bail. Along with other accused he was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 395, 397, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Initially the applicant was enlarged on bail during trial. He was taken to custody on the basis of non bailable warrant issued by the Trial Court as he failed to remain present in the Court. ((-2-)) 3. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 was employed in courier service. On 10th August 2005 in the morning at about 7.30 a.m. he got down from the bus near J.J.Hospital Fly over. At that time he was having black coloured bag containing cash amount and parcel of electrical articles. According to the prosecution case there were five persons involved in the incident. One of them snatched the said bag with the help of the other four. Out of the said four persons, one assaulted PW-1 by an iron pipe in hand. One assaulted him on his head by using revolver’s barrel. The remaining two assaulted him by hands. According to the prosecution case, certain cell phones were entrusted to the courier service where the applicant was working and it is alleged that the said cell phones were stolen. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant was one of the five persons involved in the incident. The allegation against the applicant is of recovery of two cell phones from his house. The allegation is that two cell phones were carried at the relevant time by PW-1. 4. The case of the applicant will have to be ((-3-)) distinguished from the case of other five accused persons who were involved in the incident and who have been identified in the test identified parade. The applicant is admittedly not involved in the incident near the J.J.Flyover. 5. The only evidence against the applicant is of recovery of two cellphones from his residence which were in the stolen bag of PW-1. If this is the only evidence against the applicant, the case of the applicant will have to be considered for grant of bail. Learned APP has invited my attention to the order dated 27th August 2008 passed in Criminal Application No.2497 of 2008. As stated earlier, the Trial Court had granted bail in favour of the applicant but later on he was taken into custody as he remained absent. By the said order on 27th August 2008 this Court declined to grant bail on two grounds. One is that the trial had already commenced before the Fast Track Court and there was reasonable possibility of the appellant not being available if he is released on bail. 6. Considering the evidence of the prosecution ((-4-)) as against applicant and considering the fact that from 15th June 2007 the applicant is in custody, a case is made out for grant of bail subject to compliance of very stringent conditions. 7. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) The applicant shall be released on bail of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousands only) with one or two sureties in the like amount; (b) Bail is granted subject to further condition that the applicant will report to the office of DCP, CID, Mumbai on every 1st and 3rd Monday of every calender month till disposal of the appeal. (A.S.OKA, J.)