1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1114 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1016 OF 2008 Deepak Prabhudas Tochandani ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent. ----- Mr. Amin Solkar for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE: 6th October, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs 500/- and, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 3. Mr. Solkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submitted that, admittedly, the applicant did not enter the house when the robbery has taken place and he was, therefore, not identified by any of the witnesses. He invited my attention to the 2 finding recorded by the Trial Court wherein the Trial Court has observed that the only evidence against the present applicant was the recovery of stolen property at his instance. 4. I have perused the impugned order. The Trial Court has categorically observed that the applicant was not present in the house when the robbery has taken place and, admittedly, he has not entered the house of the complainant. The Trial Court has convicted the applicant only because the stolen property was recovered at his instance. In my view, under these circumstances, applicant is entitled to get the bail. Applicant was on bail during trial. 5. Applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall give his permanent address to the police and he shall report to Chembur Police Station once in a month. (V.M. KANADE, J.)