1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1054 OF 2010 Uttam Kashinath Gaikwad ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Mr.B.S. Kudale, Advocate for applicant. Mr.K.S. Patil, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J DATE : 12th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.B.S. Kudale, learned counsel for applicant and Mr.K.S. Patil, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.83/2009 registered with police station, Sirsala, Dist.Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, since applicant was arrested thereunder on 9th September, 2009 and he is in judicial custody presently. 3. It appears that offence has been registered on the 2 basis of complaint lodged by complainant namely Sunil Sambhaji Lomte on 07.07.2009 in respect of incident which was occurred on 06.07.2009. It is alleged by complainant that he is serving as Manager in Sheti and Janhit Gramin Non-Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., and on 06.07.2009, after completing the affairs of the said society, he returned back to home along with cash amount and kept it in cupboard. During the intervening night between 06.07.2009 and 07.07.2009, while he was asleep, he heard shouts of his parents, and therefore, he tried to open the door of his bed-room, but same was locked, hence he opened the door of window of his room and saw that three robbers who were slim and worn banian and covering their heads, and therefore, he gave call to his father who came there and opened the door of his bed-room. Thereafter, he made enquiry, thereupon the father stated that robbers assaulted him and robbed jewelery and cash from cupboard. It is further disclosed that his father sustained bleeding injuries on his head and mother also sustained the bleeding injuries on her left hand. The complainant also gave description of the robbed ornaments as well as cash amount in the 3 said complaint. 4. On the aforesaid background, learned counsel for applicant urged that since the description of robbers has not been given in the complaint alleged identification of applicant in test identification parade is doubtful. It is also canvased by learned counsel for applicant that the alleged recovery of cash amount of Rs.75,664/- has not been made soon after the theft but it was made after one month i.e. on 30.09.2009. Therefore, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the observations made in the case of Vasant @ Roshan Sogaji Bhosale V/s State of Maharashtra (1997(2)Mh.L.J.404). It is also submitted that investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and therefore, there is no propriety in keeping applicant in custody furthermore. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the statement of father of complainant namely; Sambhaji Lomte apparently 4 connects applicant in the crime. It is also submitted that said Sambahji Lomte i.e. father of complainant identified applicant in test identification parade. It is further submitted that the recovery of jewelery of gold ornaments, amounting to Rs.1,10,000/- has been made at the instance of applicant on 30th September, 2009 and he further submitted that alleged delay in making the said recovery is matter of appreciation of evidence and same can not be considered at this stage. It is further submitted that apparently there is incriminating evidence against applicant and he has not made out any case. 6. On the perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, at the outset it is apparent that complainant's father namely Sambhaji Lomte, who has seen the robbers, has identified them during test identification parade which apparently discloses that there is incriminating evidence against applicant. Moreover, it also appears that, discovery of jewelery ornaments amounting to Rs.1,10,000/- has been made at the instance of applicant under memorandum panchanama 5 dated 15th September, 2009. It also appears that the said jewelery ornaments were kept in ditch buried therein, and therefore, apparently it appears that it was under exclusive knowledge of applicant herein, and therefore, apparently, it also amounts to incriminating evidence against applicant herein. It is further submitted that the alleged delay in making discovery of jewelery is a matter of evidence and same can be considered at the time of trial. Therefore, the observations made in the above cited case are of no aid and assistance to the present applicant at this stage. 7. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the present application and same is devoid of any merits and same stands dismissed. 8. Liberty granted to the applicant to apply before the learned Court of Sessions to expedite hearing of the trial, and if such application is preferred by the applicant, the learned Judge to consider it on its own merits and in accordance with law. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri1054.10