1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4022 OF 2008 Kavita Suresh Shinde .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mrs.Anjali Patil for the applicant. Mr.Y.S. Shinde APP for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 3rd February 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for bail in connection with an offence registered under Crime No.I-244 of 2007 punishable u/s.396, 397, 452 and 412 of the IPC. The applicant is being tried in Sessions Case No.156 of 2006 in connection of the said offence. 2 3. One previous application for bail made by the applicant was rejected by this court (myself) by an order dated 29th November 2007 on the ground that the investigation was pending and one of the accused was at large. Second bail application bearing Criminal Application no.499 of 2008 was allowed to be withdrawn by this court with liberty to move the Sessions Court in view of the fact that charge-sheet had by then been filed. The applicant thereafter moved to the Sessions Court but that application was rejected by the Sessions Judge by an order dated 20th August 2008. Hence this bail application has been filed in this court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that four other accused have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. She produced on record copies of two orders passed in the bail applications filed by Datta Bapu Shinde and Achyut Prabhu Pawar. Though copies of orders granting bail to other two accused are not available on record, learned APP admits that two more co-accused have been granted bail. Applicant claims bail on the ground of parity. 5. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order 3 dated 20th August 2008 has rejected the bail inter alia on the ground that at the instance of the applicant there was a discovery of ornaments u/s.27 of the Evidence Act and that the applicant was waiting outside the house (scene of offence) when the co-accused were committing dacoity. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no evidence on record that accused was present and was keepint a watch outside the house when the robbery was being committed. She submitted that the statement made in the order of the Sessions Court is contrary to the facts on record. Learned APP, after consulting the Investigating Officer Mr.S.L. Gaikwad who is present in the Court, submitted that there is no material on record to show that the applicant was present at the site of offence when the dacoity was being committed. Thus, the only available evidence is of discovery. That would, at best prove that the applicant was either the receiver of the stolen property or was concealing the evidence, but may not prima facie connect the applicant to the crime of dacoity. 6. Considering the fact taht applicant is a woman and was not prima facie shown to be present at the scene of crime of dacoity, and also considering the fact that she is in jail for about 18 months and the trial is not likely to be over in the near future 4 and also considering that other co-accused have been granted bail, Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R . The applicant is granted bil on executing P.R. bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties in the like amount and subject to the condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned police station once a month between 1st and 5th day of every British calendar month. The applicant shall also produce proof of her residence at the time of furnishing bail and shall not change the place of residence without prior permission of the Sessions Court till the conclusion of the trial. On breach of any of the conditions the bail shall stand cancelled forthwith. (D.G. KARNIK, J)