jpc applns885,886 & 887-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 885 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 886 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 887 OF 2011 Aniket Jaywant Parab ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. S. V. Marwadi, for the applicant Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 11th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Marwadi, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the State. 2. These three applications for bail can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. 3. In all these cases, the applicant is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 395 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as also the offences punishable under the Arms Act. One Dacoity is said to have taken place on 21st June, 2010 ( relating to Cri. Application No. 886/2011), another on 30th August, 2010 (relating to Cri. Application No.885/2010) and the third on 11th August, 2011 ( relating to Cri. application No. 887 /2011). jpc applns885,886 & 887-11.sxw 2 4. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State, I have gone through all the bail applications and the annexures thereto. It is clear that even as per the prosecution case, the applicant is not one of the dacoits. It is nobody's case that he took part in any of the said three dacoities. The only allegation against the applicant is that he assisted the actual dacoits, by securing for the co-accused Subodhkumar Yadav, a residential accommodation. It is also alleged that the motorcycles, which the applicant had purchased, were used in commission of dacoities. 5. According to Mr. Marwadi, since the said Sonukumar Yadav had no documents necessary for purchasing the motorcycles, the same were purchased in the name of the applicant. He pointed out, that it is the case of the prosecution itself. It also appears from the statements recorded during the investigation, that none of the motorcycles was being used by the applicant. One was being used by the said Sonukumar Yadav and the other was used by Subodhkumar. 6. In my opinion, considering the material that is available against the applicant, he deserves to be released on bail. As a matter of fact, even the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who rejected the applicant's applications for bail, held only these two things against the applicant :- namely, his alleged assisting the accused Sonukumar Yadav to secure residential premises and his assisting the said Sonukumar and another accused -Subodhkumar in getting the motorcycles. jpc applns885,886 & 887-11.sxw 3 7. Moreover, the applicant is in custody since November, 2010. In none of the three cases, the trial has commenced. 8. The applications are allowed. Operative order in Criminal Bail Application No. 885 of 2011. 9. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each, Operative order in Criminal Bail Application No. 886 of 2011. 10. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each. Operative order in Criminal Bail Application No. 887 of 2011. 11. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)