{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3474 OF 2010 Sachin Balasaheb Shinde APPLICANT Age-30 years, Occ-Driver R/o Amardip Colony, Rahatani, Pune VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Ambad Tq-Ambad, Dist-Jalna ....... Mr. N.S.Kadam, Advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 30 th September 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is the second round of the applicant to seek regular bail in connection with Crime No.84/2010 registered with Ambad police station, Dist-Jalna for an offence punishable u/s 395, 397, 398 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court, on 29.06.2010, had rejected the earlier application filed by the applicant, however, as now the charge sheet has been filed and the application filed by the applicant is rejected by the lower court, the applicant is before this court seeking bail over again. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of the investigation. 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Sayyad Shakeel on 06.05.2010. It is alleged in the complaint that while the complainant was proceeding from in front of hotel Kalyani at about 3.30 p.m. one car came there and 5/6 persons alighted and robed cash of Rs.2000/- from the complainant on the point of knife. Thereafter, the said car was chased and intercepted and the inmates were arrested. The robbed cash was recovered from the possession of the said persons. 4. Earlier application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on the ground that investigation was in progress and there was apprehension of the applicant being involved in such type of offences and the investigation would have hampered had the applicant been released on bail. 5. Perusal of the investigation papers indicate that the role alleged against the applicant is that he was driving the said car at the relevant time. It appears that the applicant is not the owner of the said car, however, he was only driving the same. Admittedly, the applicant has neither threatened the complainant nor robbed the cash. During the pendency of this application, APP {3} was directed to find out the roots of the applicant and it is informed that the applicant is the permanent resident of Pune and is having house property in the name of his father at Pune. Though the papers of investigation disclose recovery of knife at the instance of applicant, yet as per the statements of witnesses, the applicant was not holding the knife at the relevant time and hence the recovery does not bear any meaning and though the lower court has observed that the applicant is involved in two offences yet the papers of investigation do not disclose so. As now the investigation is over and the charge sheet is filed and the role alleged against the applicant is very limited to the extent of driving the vehicle at the relevant time, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bonds in the like amount, if not wanted in any other case. The applicant is directed to attend the Ambad police station on 10th and 20th day of each month, till commencement of the trial. Failure to comply with the said condition would entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3474.10