1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3013 of 2009 (Maruti Sayanna Pawar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.K.Naikwade, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. D.R.Korde, APP, for respondent/State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 18/9/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicants and learned A.P.P. 2. In an offense under Section 395 and 342 of IPC for an incident dt.2nd Jan.,2009, the accused/applicants seek bail. 3. In a decoity, the family members of the complainant suffered kick blows, stick assault and lost valuable articles like Mobile, TV, golden ornaments, 2 cash, etc. The accused Maruti was found with stolen articles, taken in custody on 17th March, 2009, discovery statement led to recovery and also to nab other two accused. 4. In identification parade held during custody, the accused are identified by the witnesses. 5. The Counsel criticized conducting of test identification parade as it is after two days of the arrest of the accused when the accused were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The contention that only recovery is as against Maruti Pawar by itself will not be a ground for bail to others as the identification parade conducted shows that the witnesses have pointed the accused with specific roles. That apart, at this stage of the matter, the loopholes in conducting the parade or belated parade by itself will not be a ground. It is to be considered at the stage of trial. Learned 3 A.P.P. informs that, there are other offenses against the accused no.1 being Crime No.7/2009 and 12/2009 pending at different Police Stations. No bail. Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/3013-09crapl