[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.943 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Rashmi Kumar Doshi. ...Respondent ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the Applicant- State. Mr.P.Jadhav h/f. Sandesh D. Patil, Adv. for the Respondent. ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : 13th June, 2007 DATE : 13th June, 2007 DATE : 13th June, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The State has preferred this application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent. The said anticipatory bail was granted by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 4.11.2006 in MECR No.14 of 2006 which was investigated by D.B.Marg Police Station. In the said case the respondent is being prosecuted under [-2-] Section 411 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that one Raghuvir Singh committed criminal breach of trust in respect of diamonds of the complainant Shri.Patel. The value of the diamonds was approximately Rs.35 lakhs. Though these diamonds were disposed of by co-accused Gohil, out of the said diamonds, diamonds worth about Rs.5.35 lakhs were given to one person. It is the prosecution case that diamonds worth Rs.3 lakhs were pledged by the said person with the present applicant. Hence, custody of the applicant was sought. There is no reliable and admissible material to show that the applicant was receiver of the stolen property worth about Rs.3 lakhs. Besides this case, the present applicant has a clean record. There are no allegations against the applicant that he has tampered with any of the witnesses or he was not available for investigation. 4. I have perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also observed therein that there is no reliable or credible material before [-3-] the investigating agency to come to the conclusion that diamonds worth about Rs.3 lakhs were pledged by the co-accused with the applicant. Looking to all the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to cancel the bail. 5. Application is rejected. [Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.]