(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6835 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6835 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6835 OF 2005 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 976 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 976 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 976 OF 2005 Rajeev @ Giriraj Kishor Bramhaswaroop Upadhyay ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Mr. R.R. Mishra and J.B. Mishra, Advocate for Applicant Mr. B.H. Mehta, A.P.P. for State. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED: 28TH OCTOBER, 2005 DATED: 28TH OCTOBER, 2005 DATED: 28TH OCTOBER, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant i.e. original accused No.3 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail. The applicant has been convicted under Section 392 r.w. 397 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been in custody for almost half the period of imprisonment i.e. he has completed more than three years of imprisonment, hence, the applicant may be granted bail on this ground. (-2-) 4. It is the prosecution case that P.W.16 Dr. Sanjay Kasliwal alongwith his family members was proceeding to his relation’s house. On the way, his car came to be stopped by persons who were armed. A bullet came to be fired by those persons at his father. The Mangalsutra of the wife of P.W.16 Dr. Sanjay Kasliwal also came to be robbed during the said incident. In the present case, none of the witness i.e. P.W. 2 Mr. Kasliwal or his son P.W.16 Dr.Sanjay Kasliwal has identified the present applicant as having taken part in the said incident. So also there is no recovery of stolen property or any weapon at the instance of the applicant. 5. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that on the next day of the incident, the applicant was found driving the vehicle in which other accused were sitting. When they came to be apprehended by the police some ornaments were found in the vehicle. However, as observed earlier, none of the witnesses involved in the incident which has taken place on the earlier day, has identified the applicant. 6. As far as the submission of the prosecution is concerned that the applicant was driving the vehicle, the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was driver by profession and the applicant had taken the said jeep on the instructions (-3-) of his employer to carry the passengers on hire. In any event, the applicant was found on the next day of the incident driving the vehicle. 7. In respect of the ornaments the learned advocate for the applicant has further pointed out that the ornaments were not found lying in the vehicle but they were found in the possession of accused No.2 Shantidevi and they have been seized from accused No.2 Shantidevi under panchanama. Thus, it is submitted that nothing was found with the applicant. On perusal of the evidence, I found this submission to be correct. The learned Sessions Judge in paras 7 and 41 of the judgment has observed that the ornaments in the jeep were found in the bag which was with accused No.2 Shantidevi and all these articles have been seized under panchanama from accused No.2 Shantidevi. Looking to all these facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. The applicant Rajeev @ Giriraj Kishore Bramhaswaroop Upadhyay to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The said sureties shall be from the State of Maharashtra. During the pendency of appeal, the applicant shall report on every alternate Sunday to Yeola police station. (-4-) 9. Application is disposed of. *****