((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2009 Nilesh Vijay Sangare Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent N.N.Gavankar i/by Arfan Sait for applicant. Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th February 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. The conviction of the applicant is for the offence punishable under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the maximum substantive sentence is seven years. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken me through the notes of evidence. He has invited my attention to paragraph 2 of the deposition of PW-1 Jayesh Gopal. The said witness is the complainant who is the injured person. In paragraph 2 of the deposition he has stated thus :- ((-2-)) "2. The incident occurred on 19.01.2008. On that day I opened my stall at 6.00 a.m. Myself and my father were at the stall. My father had gone for taking lunch and my mother had gone at floor mill. At about 4.30 p.m. I was alone at the Stall. The accused came to me and asked me to give Hapta. I asked accused that he should not make demand of Hapta. The accused opened the cash box by his hand. I used to keep sale collection in that box. The accused started pushing and pulling. The accused then took out one weapon which was at his back side. He raised the same to give blow of that weapon to me. The accused pushed me from my stall. Then I held hand of the accused in which there was weapon. The accused tried to give blow of that weapon on my abdomen. I held him by my hand. Then accused pushed me and I feel down. I sustained injury on my palm. It started blooding. In that scuffle I lost my good chain. In the meantime, my mother came there. The accused then ran away towards Bailbag side. Then my mother took me to City Police Station, Ratnagiri." In paragraph 9 the complainant has stated thus:- "9. Medical Officer had observed all the injuries which were on my person. There was no injury around my neck because of snatching of golden chain. It is not true to say that I have given false evidence that the accused had snatched away my chain." 2. If this is the version of the complainant, ((-3-)) I am of the view that a case is made out for grant of bail. Learned APP has opposed the bail application mainly on the ground of antecedents of the applicant. He has pointed out that there are five serious offences registered against the applicant. He has submitted a report signed by the concerned Police Officer of Ratnagiri City Police Station. The report shows that out of five serious cases registered against the applicant, one has resulted into conviction and three have resulted into acquittal. There is one offence registered under section 122(c) of the Bombay Police Act. There are seven cases where it is alleged that the applicant has committed non-cognizable offences. There were several chapter proceedings initiated under sections 110/107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and most of them have been dropped. The proposals initiated on two occasions for externing the appellant has been turned down. 3. Though a case is made out for grant of bail, stringent conditions will have to be imposed on the applicant. 4. Hence, I pass following order :- ((-4-)) (a) Till final disposal of the appeal, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, (b) The bail is granted subject to condition of applicant reporting to the Officer In-charge of Ratnagiri City Police Station on every first and third Monday of every calender month; (c) The order granting bail shall be given effect only after fine amount is deposited. (A.S.OKA, J.)