1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1245 OF 2010 Roshan Rangnath Kale ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Mr.H.I. Pathan, Advocate for applicant. Mr.P.P.More, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J DATE : 12th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.H.I. Pathan, learned counsel for applicant and Mr.P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.121/2009 registered with police station, Hingoli (City), Dist.Hingoli for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 and 27 of Arms Act, since applicant 2 was arrested thereunder on 2nd November, 2009 and he is in judicial custody presently. 3. It appears that offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by complainant namely Rameshchandra Savarmal Bagdiya on 18th July, 2009 in respect of occurrence of incident on 17th July, 2009 alleging that during the night between 17th July, 2009 and 18th July, 2009, when he was asleep in house at about 1 a.m. on 18th July, 2009, about 6 persons who had worn black colour clothes and were armed with knife and Jambias, entered into house and after entering into room they put off the lights and threatened the complainant to keep quiet and thereafter opened the doors of both Almirahs room in bedroom and committed dacoity of silver and golden jewelry as well as took away Mangalsutra of his wife and gold bangals from the hands of the wife and thereafter fled away. He gave the list of robbed articles amounting to Rs.8,75,800/- in the said incident. 4. On the aforesaid background, learned counsel for applicant urged that admittedly the complaint was 3 lodged against unknown persons, but test identification parade in respect of applicant has not been conducted by prosecution, and therefore, applicant can not be connected with alleged crime. Learned counsel for applicant further urged that the name of applicant has been given by co-accused and applicant came to be arrested on the basis of statement of co-accused, and therefore, he can not be connected with the alleged crime. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposed present application vehemently and submitted that applicant was absconding and he came to be arrested on 2nd November, 2009. As regards test identification parade, it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that when applicant came to be arrested, the letter has been given to Tahsildar, Hingoli for test identification parade and same has yet to be conducted. Learned A.P.P. further pointed out that jewelery articles to the tune of Rs.34,000/- was discovered at the instant of applicant herein under memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 9th November, 2010. Moreover, learned A.P.P. also pointed out that one C.R. of theft is also 4 pending against applicant. In the said context, learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that applicant has been enlarged on bail in the said C.R. 6. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for parties, at the outset apparently, applicant was absconding, who came to be arrested on 2nd November, 2009 although alleged offence was committed on 17th July, 2009. Moreover, it appears that there is discovery of jewelery articles at the instance of applicant to the tune of Rs.34,000/- under memorandum panchanama under Section 27 on 9th November, 2010. Moreover, it further appears that one C.R. is pending against applicant regarding theft and although applicant is on bail in the said C.R. that fact can not be denied that the said C.R. is pending against applicant. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, although the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, I am of the view that this is not fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. There is no 5 substance in the criminal application and same is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri1245.10