2408ba439.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 439 OF 2011 (Waman Sonbaji Kakde Vs. State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .. Shri S. Raisuddin, Advocate for applicant. Shri N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2011 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 21/4/2010 by Wani Police in Crime No. 69/2010 for offence punishable under Sections 394 and 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application for bail. 3. The allegation against the applicant and others is that on 18/4/2010 at about 7.00 p.m., complainant Niranjan Mali was proceeding on his motorcycle on the Highway and one of the culprits requested the complainant for lift and when the complainant stopped, the culprit snatched away key of the motorcycle and robbed wrist watch and cash of Rs.1,700/- from him, threatened him at the point of knife and took away his motorcycle. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that accused No.1 in the crime has already been released on bail and that 2408ba439.11.odt 2/2 the F.I.R. is as against unknown persons and there is no direct evidence against the applicant. He also pointed out that the charge-sheet is already filed. 5. The respondent has resisted the application by way of reply and in accordance with the said reply, the learned A.P.P. has contended that considering the material on record, the applicant should not be released. 6. The offence punishable under Section 394 I.P.C. is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, however, the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. is triable by the Court of Sessions. Hence, the case will be tried by the Sessions Court. 7. The record reveals that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in view of the disclosure statement made by the present applicant, an amount of Rs.700/- has been seized at the instance of the applicant. The watch and some cash had been recovered from the other accused persons. The case of accused No.1, who has been released on bail, is not comparable with the case of the present applicant. 8. There is prima-facie evidence against the applicant. Trial has not begun. The respondent has stated that there is possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence and prosecution witnesses. 9. Therefore, in my view, no case is made out for bail, at this stage. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE wwl