(1) Criminal Application No. 3667 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3667 of 2011 Shri Amol Ramdas Sarad, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Labourer, R/o. Babulsar (Khurd), Taluka : Shirur, District : Pune. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Supa, Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. J.S. Gavane, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER 2011 (2) Criminal Application No. 3667 of 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and also heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. I-45/2010, registered at Supa Police Station (Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 392, 341, 412, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Admittedly, the earlier application preferred by the applicant, seeking bail, was withdrawn by him on 7-2-2011 before this Court. Thereafter, it is pointed out that the co-accused Bhanudas s/o. Jayaram Sarad was granted bail by this Court on 5th July 2011, in Criminal Application No. 2419/2011. It is asserted that the case of the said co-accused Bhanudas, and the case of the applicant herein, stand on the similar footing since discovery of 50 bundles of iron bars worth Rs. 1,09,000/- was made at the instance of said co-accused Bhanudas under memorandum and panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the said co-accused was also identified in the test identification parade, whereas in case of the applicant herein, (3) Criminal Application No. 3667 of 2011 looted property amounting to Rs. 1,09,582/- was recovered at the instance of the applicant under the memorandum and panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the said property was identified by the informant and witness, and the applicant was also identified in test identification parade by the informant and witness, and therefore, learned Counsel for the applicant claimed benefit of parity in respect of the applicant. 4. Learned APP, for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that there are no criminal antecedents recorded with Supa Police Station and Shirur Police Station, in respect of the applicant herein. Moreover, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed on 19-10-2010, and hence, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody furthermore. Having survey of totality of the facts and circumstances, the applicant deserve the benefit of principle of parity, and hence, present application is required to be allowed, but on certain conditions. 5. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail, in connection with Crime No. I-45/2010, registered at Supa Police Station (Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar), on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like (4) Criminal Application No. 3667 of 2011 amount, on the conditions that (i) the applicant shall give attendance before incharge of the concerned Police Station, once in a month i.e. on first Monday of each month, till disposal of the trial, and (ii) applicant shall not influence upon witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, and present Application stands disposed of finally. 6. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3667