1 CA-2848.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE - CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2848 OF 2010 Dilip Shivprasad Pal .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Kuldeep S. Patil for the Applicant. Ms Geeta Mulekar, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 26, 2010 P.C: 1. The applicant is alleged to have participated in a dacoity on 13-11-2009 at a hotel. The learned counsel for the applicant states that his co-accused have been admitted to bail. The applicant has been denied bail on the ground that a mobile phone which was allegedly snatched from one Sandeep Shetty in the course of the dacoity was recovered at the instance of the applicant from an open ground. The learned counsel points out that the said Sandeep Shetty has not identified the applicant at the test identification parade. He submits that the co-accused who have been admitted to 2 CA-2848.10 bail have been duly identified at the identification parade. He also points out that some cash has been recovered from the co- accused who have been admitted to bail. All the same, since a mobile phone, which is an identifiable article, as contrasted with cash has been recovered at the instance of the applicant from a place, the description whereof does not prima facie disclose that the mobile phone could have been located without the help of the applicant, the denial of bail to the applicant was justified. The question as to whether the recovery was made from open space would have to await trial since the description of the place in the panchnama is in grass under a plant near the road which led to the applicant s house. This recovery was made on 3-12-2009, that is twenty days after the incident. The applicant has also been identified by one Chintu, an eye-witness to the incident. In view of this identification by an eye-witness coupled with the recovery of the mobile phone which was snatched from Sandeep Shetty should be enough for denial of bail to the applicant for the present. The application is, therefore, rejected. 2. The learned trial Judge would 3 CA-2848.10 undoubtedly take up the trial for expeditious hearing since the accused in in jail. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)