1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLN. NO.2072 OF 2008 (MD. CHAND RIAZUDDIN PATHAN Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.Z.Gharde, Advocate for Applicant. Shri A.S.Sonare, A.P.P. for respondent. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 01, 2008. 1. This is an application for releasing the applicant on bail. 2. The applicant along with two other accused persons were arrested in Crime No.148/2007 of Police Station, Kalmeshwar for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On facts, it reveals that the accused persons have committed decoity and take away medicines worth Rs.1,74,39,360/. The accused are already under arrest in State of U.P. and are at present in Lucknow jail. 2 4. Admittedly the place of permanent resident of the accused persons is not in Maharashtra. Further the fact that they are in jail in the offence of equally serious nature, needs attention. The contention of the applicant, seeking bail is that he is involved in the false case. Case is of decoity and the accused was participating, as alleged, and falsehood is to be decided at the end of trial. 5. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay @ Bablu @ Keja Vs. State of Gujarat, reported at 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) 468 (S.C.), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that it would not be appropriate to keep the accused in jail, if he is otherwise entitled to bail, only on the ground that since he is from different state ( as in the present case from U.P.), on the ground that he would abscond. 6. The question is whether on facts otherwise the applicant is entitled to bail. On facts, it is seen that identification parade was conducted and the accused have been identified. The case at hand is decoity of medicines of a standard company having worth Rs.1,74,39,360/-. The medicines/ muddemal is disposed off. 3 7. Considering the criminal record of the accused that he is already in jail, in the background of case at hand being of decoity the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.