1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2807 OF 2009 Rupsing Khube Rathod and another Versus State of Maharashtra *** Mrs. S. S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. D. R. Korde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** 1. The accused/ applicant under custody from 29th March, 2009, in Crime No.14 of 2009 registered with Police Station Aurad (Sh.), district Latur, for offence under section 395, 341 of I.P.C., seeks bail. 2. On 25th March, 2009, in the evening the complainant, while was proceeding on motorcycle, 3-4 unknown persons countered him. They assaulted the complainant and his friend. They removed mobile hand-set of Nokia company with force and also removed cash which was with the complainant. Police were on trace of the suspects, in the light of registration of offence. It was based on the mobile number of the complainant being provided to the police, they traced such call with one Jagannath Shantappa Dubalgunde, Police Constable. Said constable was contacted and he informed investigator of this case that he received such call from Rupsing Khuba Rathod (the Accused/ applicant herein). Police located the accused based on the mobile 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. reference and the accused is in custody. 3. The investigator informs, there are other cases against the accused/ applicant of identical nature. There is no explanation offered initially from the accused as to how he could come in contact or in possession of the said mobile belonging to the complainant though the sim-card was in the name of somebody else from the branch of complainant. Cash of Rs.2000/- was recovered from Applicant No. 2. Consequently, applicant No.2 also cannot get benefit. Considering nature of allegations, no bail. Application rejected. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:01/09/2009. ans/2807