IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1879 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1879 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1879 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1880 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1880 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1880 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1881 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1881 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1881 OF 2008 Allauddin Hayachand Kazi. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Nitin Pradhan i/b. Ms.Shubhada Khot for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 16th June 2008. DATED: 16th June 2008. DATED: 16th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. All these applications are being disposed of by this common order since the facts involved are identical and the submissions made are similar. 3. By the aforesaid applications the applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.90/2007; C.R.No.107/2007; and C.R.No.110/2007 respectively, registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 379, 411, 34 of Indian Penal Code; sections 26(f), 41, 42, 61 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and sections 39, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 4. According to the prosecution case, at the mid-night of 3rd to 4th September, 2007, the applicant along with other accused committed theft of five sandalwood trees and twelve peacock from the premises of Rajiv Gandhi Zoo, Katraj, Pune. That the applicant dishonestly received the said stolen property i.e. sandalwood. Accordingly, offence came to be registered. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the investigation is complete, chargesheet has already been filed and looking to the nature of offence and the punishment, this is a fit case for bail. He further submits that no purpose will be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars, especially, when the trial is likely to take a considerable long time. 6. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposed these applications for bail contending that the applicant- accused is a habitual offender and that he had been absconding for a considerable long time. - 3 - 7. The applicant is, presently, in custody since 7th April, 2008. The chargesheet has already been filed. Investigation is over. In my considered view, no purpose would be served by detaining the applicant in the custody. However, in order to protect the interest of the prosecution, applicant can be asked to report the police station/ investigating officer once in a week till the trial is over. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant, subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant, arrested in connection with C.R.No.90/2007, C.R.No.107/2007 and C.R.No.110/2007 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- in each C.R. with one or two independent local solvent sureties to make up the said amount. (b) The applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station once in a week, i.e. on every Monday between 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. He shall co-operate with the investigating agency for disposal of the - 4 - case. (c) The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the investigating officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of trial without prior intimation to the investigating officer. (d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (e) It is needless to mention that breach of any of the conditions by the applicant shall result in cancellation of bail. (f) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as finding or expression on merits of the case at the time of trial. 9. Application stands disposed of accordingly. - 5 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE