1 BA-1204.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1204 OF 2011 Kiran Arjun Sawalkar .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Sachin Thombare for the Applicant. Shri J.P. Kharge, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 18, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for bail by a person who was allegedly involved in a robbery. All the articles which were stolen have been recovered from the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant states that in the FIR the first informant had mentioned that three unknown persons had entered her house and committed the robbery. He points out that in the supplementary statement the first informant is reported to have stated that when the present applicant was brought and shown to the first informant, the applicant stated that he had committed the robbery alone. What the applicant states cannot alter what the first 2 BA-1204.11 informant had said. The learned counsel also points out that T.I. Parade was not held. When asked as to what is the explanation of the applicant about the recovery of articles from him, the learned counsel states that he would not like to disclose the defence at this stage. In view of this, since the applicant was found to be in possession of stolen articles, though the offence is triable by a Magistrate, the applicant is not entitled to bail. The application is rejected. 2. The learned trial Magistrate would ensure that the trial is commenced as early as possible and is concluded within a period of three months. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)