..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2042 OF 2008 Mandeepsingh Udhamsingh Goira. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi, Adv. for applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R No.I-101 of 2008 of Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 395, 364 of IPC. 3. The case of the complainant is that he was driving a tempo. There were electronic goods in the said tempo. At about 2:40 p.m one Tata Safari obstructed the said tempo. Four persons caught hold of the complainant. They pulled him down from the tempo and forcibly made him to sit in the ..(2).. Tata Safari. Then the four persons also sat in the Tata Safari. The case of the complainant is that the applicant is one of the four persons. The remaining three persons took away the tempo filled with electronic goods. 4. After some time, the complainant was released by the said persons. Thereafter, he contacted his employer. While the employer and the complainant were proceeding on the highway to the octroi naka, the complainant saw the very same Tata Safari and pointed it out to his employer. They informed the police about the said fact. The police intercepted the Tata Safari. In the said Tata Safari four persons were found including the present applicant. The material on record shows the involvement of the applicant in the crime. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)