[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1457 OF 2008 Dhansing Lalsing Negi and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Sanjeev P.Kadam Advocate for Applicants Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 15, 2008 DATE : JULY 15, 2008 DATE : JULY 15, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in CR No.40 of 2007 of Talbid Police Station, Karad. The said case is under Section 394 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the car belonging to Sunny Sonawane came to be hired. The complainant was the driver of the car. The applicant along with other accused sat in the said car and they were travelling to Dharwad. When the car reached at Satara-Talbid [-2-] road, four of the accused persons caught hold of the complainant and they assaulted him, put adhesive tape on his mouth, robbed him of money, mobile handset and the car. Thereafter they stripped him of his clothes and threw him in a field. The complainant has identified the present applicants as being two out of the said four persons. 4. The learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that there is no recovery at the instance of the present applicants and only material against the applicants is that the complainant has identified the applicants in test identification parade held on 12.2.2008. Mr.Kadam further submitted that the incident has occurred on 25.11.2007. The applicants were arrested on 9.12.2007 and on 10.12.2007 they were shown to Sunny Sonawane who is the owner of the car and cousin of Mr.Sunny Sonawane. He submitted that in such case, the accused persons were very much available in the police station and as they were shown to Sunny Sonawane and his cousin, the investigating agency must have shown the applicants to the complainant also and hence, identification by the complainant of the applicants in the test identification parade on 12.2.2008 would be of no [-3-] consequence. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that there is no material on record to show that the complainant was shown the accused persons. Even assuming that the complainant was shown those accused persons, the complainant had travelled with the accused persons for over an hour in a vehicle. In such case, he had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused persons and hence, in such case holding of test identification parade was not strictly necessary. Hence, even assuming that the applicants were shown to the complainant on 10.12.2007 and thereafter the test identification parade was held on 12.2.2008 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not affect the prosecution case. 5. As observed earlier, witnesses have identified the accused persons. Besides this, the applicant no.1 is involved in three other cases similar in nature to the present case which are as under: ---------------------------------------------------- Sr. Police CR Sections Status No. Station No. ---------------------------------------------------- 1. Talbid 32/07 394,120(B) Charge-sheet and 411 of filed in Court IPC 2. Talbid 40/07 395 & 411 Charge-sheet [-4-] of IPC filed in Court 3. Satara 510/07 394 of IPC Charge-sheet City yet to be filed ----------------------------------------------------- 6. Looking to the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail to the applicants. 7. Application is rejected and is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]