1 2394.11 Cri.Appln. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2394 OF 2011 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2011 Vishwanath S/o Gynaba Gavli & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the applicants Shri G.R. Ingole, APP for the respondent ..... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2561 OF 2011 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 305 OF 2011 Roshan @ Dhonya S/o Rangnath Kale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Shri H.I.Pathan, Advocate for the applicants Shri G.R. Ingole, APP for the respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 12 th October, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused applications and the copies of evidence. 2 2394.11 Cri.Appln. 2. These applications for bail are in the appeals preferred against the judgment and order dated 03-05-2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in S.T. No. 52/10, convicting the applicants/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for five years each and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default of payment of the fine, to suffer S.I. for one month each. 3. According to the prosecution, the applicants/ accused were involved in night time dacoity committed after breaking open the channel door of the house of the complainant-PW-4 Bagadiya in the night between 17-07-2009 and 18-07-2009. The complainant PW-4 Bagadiya, thereupon lodged complaint (Exhibit 44) with City Police Station, Hingoli in the morning of 18-07-2009. He gave an account of the dacoity, as well as the golden ornaments, silver chips and jewelery robbed from his house by the decoits. A Crime was registered against the unknown accused at Crime No. 139/2009 with City Police Station, Hingoli. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants/ accused Nos. 3 & 6 that they were not identified by the complainant before the Trial Court and the evidence of discovery pitted against them 3 2394.11 Cri.Appln. is not credible. It is submitted on behalf of applicant / accused No. 3 that, during the trial he was on bail, and had not committed any breach or violation of terms and conditions on which the bail was granted. According to the applicants/ accused, there was no eye witness account of the dacoity, other than the one from the complainant PW-4 Bagadiya, and they do not have any criminal background. It is for these reasons the applicants/ accused submit that they deserve to be released on bail. 5. The learned APP for the State countered these submissions with the affidavit in reply, dated 28-05-2011. He submitted that the applicants/ accused are relations interse and they are habitual offenders indulging in theft, robbery, and dacoity, and would abscond if released on bail. He further submitted that there is enough evidence to prima facie point out the involvement of the applicants/ accused in the crime in question. At this stage, the application for bail on behalf of the applicant Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 (Ori. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9) in Criminal Application No. 2394/2011 is not pressed. 6. As regards the applicant/ accused No. 3 namely Kathalu @ Sigret S/o Sahebrao Pawar, the record reveals that he 4 2394.11 Cri.Appln. had not misused the liberties granted to him, by virtue of grant of bail before the trial Court, and the discovery panch, PW-5 Jadhav did not support the prosecution case. The record also reveals that the alleged discovery was made from the residence of the applicant/ accused No. 3, which suggests that the applicant/ accused No. 3 is not without any residence the fact of which figures in the rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the wife of the applicant No. 3, on 11-10-2011. 7. As regards applicant/ accused No. 6, Roshan @ Dhonya S/o Rangnath Kale, there is prima facie crediable view of the discovery of the robbed material namely golden rings from the ‘Meharab’ inside the house shown by the applicant/ accused No. 6, Roshan @ Dhonya S/o Rangnath Kale. Prima facie therefore, the involvement of the applicant/ accused No. 6 in the crime is patent. His bail application, therefore, deserves to be rejected. Hence order. ORDER [i] The applicant Accused No. 3-Kathalu @ Sigret S/o Sahebrao Pawar, be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) 5 2394.11 Cri.Appln. with one or more sureties in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : [ii] The applicant/ accused No. 3- Kathalu @ Sigret S/o Sahebrao Pawar shall attend the City Police Station, Hingoli on every Monday between 11.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. [iii] The applicant/ accused No. 3 shall keep duly instructed Advocate on record for conducting the present appeal on every given date. [iv] Criminal Application No. 2394/2011 is partly allowed. Liberty is granted for moving the Court for fixing the date of final hearing, and the application of applicants Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 are dismissed, except applicant/ accused No. 3-Kathalu @ Sigret S/o Sahebrao Pawar. Liberty is granted to move the application on behalf of other applicants Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 at any later stage. [v] Criminal Application No. 2561/2011 stands rejected. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* October-11