1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 2670 OF 2009 Shri Shankar Suresh Wasita .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Mahendra Kawchale, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 22/06/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-14 of 2007 of Vithalwadi Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and five others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 395, 397, 341 read with 34 of IPC, section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act and section37(1), 135 of Bombay Police Act. 3. The prosecution case is that when the complainant was closing his jewelry shop, one person entered the shop with T 2 revolver and, thereafter, five other persons also entered the shop and committed dacoity of jewelry and ornaments worth Rs. 13,18,660/-. 4. Mr. Kawachale, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that none of the witnesses has named the present applicant and that no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution. He, then, invited my attention to the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by this Court (V.M.Kanade,J.) in Criminal Application No.716 of 2009, by which the co-accused-Deepak Waman Sapke,has been released on bail, and submitted that the applicant is also entitled for bail on parity. Ms. Shinde, learned APP, submitted that there is difference between the case of the applicant and Deepak Sapke. She submitted that there was no recovery at the instance of Deepak Sapke, whereas the stolen articles worth Rs.20,925/- have been recovered at the instance of the applicant. Though there is some difference between the case of the present applicant and the one who is released on bail, Mr Kawachale, submitted that the applicant would be, at the most, held guilty of receiving stolen property under section 412 of IPC. He submitted that in view of the fact that no identification parade was conducted, this case, would not be ended in conviction under sections 395, 397 and 341 of IPC. 3 Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by this court dated 26.2.2009, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The applicant-Shankar Suresh Wasita is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every Saturday between 6 and 7 pm till conclusion of the trial. While passing this order, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)