14crm2027-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2027 OF 2010 Arjun Sangaram Prajapati. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Ms.Anjali Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for regular bail preferred on behalf of the applicant. 2. The applicant along with co-accused was arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364A, 209 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. 3. Initially there was a missing complaint lodged by father of the victim boy. After lodging of the missing 14crm2027-10 2 complaint, the complainant received a telephone call from the mobile phone of his missing son. However, some stranger was talking on the phone. The said stranger demanded the ransom of Rs.5 lakhs and gave certain instructions to the complainant to arrange for the money and to hand it over to a particular person. Thereafter another call was received by the complainant wherein the complainant told the person to come down to his shop to collect the amount. However, nobody turned up hence suspecting foul play and risk to the life of his own missing son, the complainant went to the police station on the next day lodging a complaint on 14.11.2009. Thereafter during the investigation main accused i.e. accused No.1 came to be arrested and at his instance the dead body of the victim was discovered and it was taken out from the hilly area of Taluka Vasai. 4. During the investigation, role of the present applicant/accused No.2 was revealed as to one of the conspirators and allegedly according to the prosecution there 14crm2027-10 3 is a statement of one Gevharchand Purohit, one shopkeeper dealing in sale and purchase of the mobiles. Said statement was recorded by the police on 21.11.2009. Whereas present applicant was arrested on 20.11.2009. In the statement of said witness Gevharchand, it is mentioned that two unknown persons came to his shop for sale of some China made mobile handset. One of them insisted for higher amount and took total amount of Rs.820/- offered by the witness. According to the said witness subsequently the said mobile handset was sold by the said witness Gevharchand to some third person an independent purchaser. It happened after one or two days of the purchase of the mobile from earlier two unknown persons. Again according to the case of the police, on 5.12.2009 test identification parade was conducted concerning the accused persons and in which said witness Gevharchand identified the present applicant as the person who demanded more amount and accepted Rs.820/- from Gevharchand. According to the said witness, original accused 14crm2027-10 4 No.1 had brought the said mobile phone for sale. According to police this is the only material against the present applicant and particularly this is a link between commission of offence and the present applicant so far as finding of the mobile handset with accused Nos.1 & 2 as they sold the same to the witness Gevharchand. 5. On this material shown to the Court from the chargesheet papers, it is asked to the learned A.P.P. as to what is the link between China mobile handset apparently sold by present applicant and co-accused No.1 to said witness Gevharchand, with the deceased. On this aspect, it is stated that there is no connecting evidence so as to say that the alleged mobile handset sold by the applicant and his associate was initially belonging to the deceased and it was taken out from the deceased after doing away with him. 6. During the arguments, learned Advocate Mrs.Patil for the applicant stated that other two co-accused were released on bail by the Sessions Court though there was material 14crm2027-10 5 against them as to they were identified in another test identification parade by some lodge-keeper as they stayed with original accused No.1 in the said lodge prior to the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the said lodge-keeper had not identified the present applicant as the person staying along with the main accused and his other associates in the said lodge. 7. Considering the above, present application can be allowed on certain conditions. Hence the order:- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.2027 of 2010 for regular bail is allowed and accordingly disposed of. [ii] The applicant - Arjun Sangaram Prajapati shall be released on bail on his executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety for the like amount or two sureties of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs.Ten Thousand Only) each. 14crm2027-10 6 [iii] After availing of bail, as above, the applicant shall attend the V.P. Road police station twice a week i.e. on every Monday and Friday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till conclusion of the trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)