(1) CRI.APP. 4301.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4301 OF 2010 1. Dinesh S/o Anirudra Taware 2. Vithal S/o Nemaji Shinde 3. Rajesh @ Rajan S/o Laxman Bhawane 4. Pramod S/o Bhiwaji Mahure .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on P.P. High Court) .. Respondent ... Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. P.P. More, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Application, the applicants seek bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The alleged incident is said to have occurred in the evening of August 28th, 2010. The complainant runs a courier agency styled as "New India Courier" at Latur. He lodged FIR alleging that in the relevant evening four unknown culprits (2) CRI.APP. 4301.2010 barged in the premises of the Office of the Courier agency. At point of revolver and knife they got open the safe, collected Rs. 4,00,000/-, put them in a bag and de-camped alongwith the money bag as well as two mobile handsets valued Rs.5000/-. 3. The applicants were arrested. During the course of investigation it appears that certain recoveries were made from them. The investigation is yet not completed and two of the culprits are yet to be arrested whose names have been revealed during course of investigation. 4. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned APP. Perused the investigation papers. 5. Mr. Deshmukh learned Advocate for the applicants would submit that the applicant no.1 is cousin of the complainant and yet strangely enough his name is not indicated in the FIR. He would submit that there was no question of identity of the applicant no.1 by the complainant during course of the T.I.P. (Test Identification Parade). He would further submit that the other applicants are not (3) CRI.APP. 4301.2010 inhabitants of Latur and have been roped in on basis of mis-information received by the Investigating Officer. He would further submit that the applicants are ready and willing to abide themselves by the conditions that may be imposed while granting bail. The learned APP strongly opposes the bail Application. 6. There cannot be any duality of opinion that crime is of serious nature inasumuch as the dacoity was committed at point of revolver and knife. The culprits exhibited devil's dare during course of the incident. The FIR no doubt shows that initially two of the unknown culprits entered the premises of the courier agency and pointed out a double bore gun and a revolver. They silenced the complainant and his two servants at point of gun and thereafter two other culprits entered the premises of the agency. The other two culprits were holding a revolver and the long knife (Kukari). One of their accomplice was having a satoor. They assaulted one of the servant of the agency, confining another servant and also gagged the mouth (4) CRI.APP. 4301.2010 of that servant. The investigation papers prima facie indicate that during course of T.I.P. (Test Identification Parade) the applicants were identified by the complainant and the servant of the courier agency. 7. True, name of the applicant no.1 is not shown in the FIR. It is alleged by the applicants that the applicant no.1 is cousin of the complainant and therefore he could have been identified immediately. First, this appears to be mere allegation in the Application. Secondly, even assuming that he is cousin of the complainant and therefore, his name could have figured in the FIR yet the investigation papers prima facie indicate that he was only the mastermind and had not entered the premises of the courier agency in the relevant evening. The investigation papers prima facie show that other culprits were guided by him as per the plan which was hatched out by him with the assistance of his girlfriend by name Varsha. The Police statement of said Varsha implicates the applicant no.1. What appears from the record is (5) CRI.APP. 4301.2010 that applicant no.1 was serving in a courier agency at Nanded but was sacked from the job. He had thereafter returned to Latur and was having intimacy with the girlfriend by name Varsha. It appears from the investigation papers that he had given amount of Rs.80,000/- to PW Varsha immediately after the alleged incident and some of the amount was recovered lateron. He collected information about the courier agency and the working of the same. Needless to say, he did not come in the picture while lodging the FIR because he kept himself outside the premises and monitored the entire episode of the burglary with the help of the other accused persons. 8. In this view of the matter, when there is a planned dacoity committed at the office of the courier agency, the applicants are not entitled to seek bail and particularly when the investigation is not yet completed. 9. In the result, the Application is dismissed. The observations in this order be not (6) CRI.APP. 4301.2010 considered while deciding any other matter on merits. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp