abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2008 Mainuddin Papulsab Hanchanmani .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.J.M. Chodankar for the applicants. Mr,Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 26th December 2007 in connection with the crime registered with Talbid Police Station, Satara under C.R. No.32/2007, punishable under sections 394, 120(B) and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 7th October 2007 four persons booked a motor vehicle (Qualis Brand) for travel from Pune to Satara to Ahmednagar. - 2 - The first informant (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant"), who was the driver, carried the said persons from Pune. At night, near Satara, the four passengers overpowered the complainant, tied his hands and lips applying sticking tape, tied his eyes with handkerchief and ran away with Qualis after throwing the complainant on the ground. On the next day morning, a passerby rescued the complainant who lodged the complaint. One of the passengers, who was apprehended, told the police that Qualis was given to the applicant. According to the prosecution, when questioned, the applicant told the police that he had sold the Qualis which was subsequently recovered from Goa. 4. Except for a statement of the co-accused that the Qualis was given to the applicant, there is no other evidence to connect the applicant to the crime. The applicant was not in possession of the Qualis. The Qualis was also not recovered in pursuance of any discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act but was traced allegedly on the basis of the statement of the applicant. Though the applicant is in custody for more than 2 months, the police have not been able to get any other evidence against the applicant. 5. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence and also taking into consideration the fact - 3 - that the maximum sentence for the charge (of receiver of stolen property) against the applicant is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, in my view, the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER ORDER ORDER The applicant be released on bail in connection with the offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in two months between 1st and 5th day of alternate British calendar month and shall attend the court on all dates to which the case may be adjourned and posted. (b) The applicant shall not change his present place of residence without prior intimation to the police. . It is clarified that all observations made herein are prima facie and the court at the trial shall not in any way be influenced by them. - 4 - (D.G. KARNIK, J.)