- 1 - 687.11 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 687 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant vs Sanjay Tukaram Gund .. Respondent Mr.K.V.Saste APP for Applicant CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 17 th August , 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned APP. Perused the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Pune granting anticipatory bail to the respondent in Crime No.52 of 2011 registered at Lonavala police station for offences punishable under section 395, 452, 504, 506, 120-B of the Indian penal Code. The prosecution seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents. 2. It appears that an offences were registered on a report lodged by one Nandkishore Khandelwal which reveals that after getting telephonic information that about 8 to 10 persons had entered into his bungalow, he rushed to the spot along with colleague - 2 - 687.11 Vasant Valunj. When they reached there, some known and some unknown persons were damaging the property in the bungalow. The complainant was also abused and threatened with a revolver and other sharp weapons. Those persons allegedly told the complainant that they were associated of one Amit Gavli who wanted to purchase the bungalow. After giving threats to those persons they forcibly took away four TV sets, and other valuable property by two vehicles. One of the vehicle was an Indica car bearing NO.MH-14 AM 7567. The description of another car was not given. According to the prosecution, during interrogation of one of the accused who was arrested, it was revealed that a Sumo jeep was also used in the commission of the crime and the present respondent was the driver of that vehicle. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail, noted that except the alleged statement of the second accused, implicating the respondent, there was no material to show his involvement in the commission of the crime or about the use of sumo vehicle The learned APP could not point out any material against the present respondent except the alleged statement of another - 3 - 687.11 accused person. It appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated about using of sumo vehicle or its number was given nor any witness had stated that the present respondent was seen participating in the commission of the crime or driving the vehicle in which the stolen property was taken away. 3. In view of these circumstances, I find no fault with the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent. Therefore, Application is rejected. J.H.BHATIA, J