1 BA 135/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1135 OF 2011 Sachine Rajaram Gaikwad ... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Vilas N. Mali for the applicant. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : A.M.THIPSAY, J DATED : 26th August 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Mali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Smt.Bhosale, learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant’s previous application for bail (Criminal Bail Application No.480 of 2011) was rejected by me on 13th July 2011. However, as at that time nobody appeared for the applicant, the said application came to be decided without hearing the applicant. Under the circumstances, the present application is being considered and is being decided after hearing Mr. Mali, learned advocate for the applicant. 2 BA 135/11 3. Undoubtedly, the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is a serious one. However, the applicant is not one of the three who were apprehended almost on the spot. The applicant is said to have made good his escape after the commission of the offence. The incident took place on 4th August 2010. The applicant was apprehended on 19th August 2010. Part of the robbed property is stated to have been recovered at the instance of the applicant on 25th August 2010. Mr.Mali pointed out that though property worth about Rs.1,03,140/- is stated to have been recovered at the instance of the applicant on 25th August 2010, the FIR itself shows that the entire robbed property was recovered on the spot itself. Smt.Bhosale, learned APP submitted that this discrepancy might be due to the fact that at the time of lodging the FIR, the first informant was not aware as to how much property exactly had been stolen. 4. The other circumstance against the applicant is of identification as one of the culprits by two witnesses. This identification parade has taken place on 30th October 2010. The memorandum of the Test Identification Parade was not included in the original charge-sheet. 5. Undoubtedly, a prima facie case exists against the applicant. However, the applicant is in custody since 19th August 2010. Though some antecedents are reported, one case relates to the theft of the vehicle which is involved in the present case itself. As regards the other case which is in respect of an offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC, it is submitted that no specific role has been 3 BA 135/11 attributed to the applicant in that case. The trial has not yet commenced. 6. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, though there exist a prima facie case against the applicant, I am inclined to release him on bail subject to certain conditions. 7. Application is allowed. Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one surety in like amount on condition that the applicant shall report to the Kharghar Police Station on every Monday and every Friday between 5.00 p.m to 7.00 p.m till the disposal of the case against him. 8. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and endeavor to complete it within a period of nine months from today. (A.M.THIPSAY, J)