1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 451 of 2011 (Madhukar Motiram Manohare ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Warud, Tah. Warud, Distt. Amravati) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. S. Dhengale, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. P. D. Kothari, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant. CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 22.8.2011. 1. Heard Mr. S. S. Dhengale, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. P. D. Kothari, learned A.P.P. for Non-Applicant. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 30/06/2011, in the Warud Police Station, Crime No. 136/2011 registered for offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application for bail. 3. The allegation is that on 29/06/2011, the complainant Shri. Ruprao Jagobaji Mahulkar had been to the District Central Cooperative Bank, Branch at Warud, for withdrawing the loan amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and, after withdrawing the same, he had kept the said amount in the carriage box of his scooter at about 2.45 p.m. The complainant wanted to deposit the said amount in the Panjabrao Deshmukh Cooperative Bank, at Warud Branch, and, therefore, had parked his scooter outside the said bank and, had 2 gone inside the bank for inquiries. When he returned back to his schooter, he found that the amount which was kept in the carriage box of his scooter was missing. 4. One alleged accused namely Shyam Madhukar Randive was arrested on 30/06/2011 in the morning session and upon his confession, an amount of Rs. 26,000 has been recovered and a Maruti Car having No. MH-27/AC-3473 has been seized. It is the said Shyam Randive who has disclosed about the complicity of the present applicant in the crime due to which the applicant came to be arrested on the same day in the evening session. 5. The applicant was in police custody for about 4 days i.e. till 04/07/2011, but nothing could be recovered at his instance. Presently, the applicant is in judicial custody. 6. Since the confession of the co-accused before the Police Officer is not admissible in evidence, prima facie there appears to be no evidence against the applicant at this stage. No recovery is also now possible at his instance. The reply filed by the respondent does not reveal that the applicant is a previous offender or that he is likely to abscond if released on bail. 7. In view of the above, the applicant is entitled to bail now under suitable conditions. 3 8. In the result, the application is allowed. 9. The applicant shall be released on bail in Warud Police Station, Crime No. 136/2011 registered for offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code upon his execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount, under following conditions namely:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available at the Warud Police Station as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer to do so. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. (iii) The applicant shall not commit any offence during this bail period. JUDGE Punde.