1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1144 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.750 OF 2009 Ramesh @ Johny @ Anna Annamalai Kaundar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.M.S.Adenwala, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S.R. Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 3RD NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The prosecution case is of dacoity and/or robbery. The prosecution case is proved essentially by the evidence of the complainant/victim, a recovery panch for recovery of a mobile handset, the S.E.M for showing the T.I.P conducted and the I.O, who investigated the case. The complainant has detailed the incident of robbery by 3 unknown persons on 9 th July 2008 in paragraph 3 of his evidence. He has shown how he identified those persons in the T.I.P, who were the accused before the Court. He has also identified his mobile handset which was recovered at the instance of the accused from his residence. 2.The Advocate for the applicant took pains to show the 2 evidence of the complainant alongside the I.O with regard to the complainant who had gone to the police station, having been shown the photographs of certain known criminals and having been taken to the T.I.P. From the above evidence no case for bail is made out, despite number of judgments with regard to the bail being granted on a prima facie case being made out, Bail being granted upon SLP being admitted in the Supreme Court and the various provisions which are required for the T.I.P, which shall be considered in the Appeal. Hence, the application for bail is refused. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)