ssp 1 appln2333.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2333 OF 2010 Mohammed Vasim Samiulla Shaikh & Anr. .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.P.C.N.Agrawal for Applicants Mr.S.N.Gawade, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : AUGUST 5TH, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for regular bail preferred by both the applicants. They are involved in offence punishable under sections 392, 397 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On earlier date i.e. On 19 th July 2010 arguments were already heard at length and facts of the case were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said order. Certain facts can be reproduced with advantage as hereinunder : 2 The complainant one lady passenger travelling in the local train and at the night time of 17 th December 2008 was robbed of her mobile instrument, money purse. That time various other commuters were also in the ladies compartment. After the said incident was over, both the ssp 2 appln2333.sxw robbers left the ladies compartment and flee away in the darkness. However, immediately a complaint was lodged with the police and search was started in which the brother of the complainant also took part. The present applicant no.1 was arrested on the same night from some agricultural field where he was hiding himself with the looted articles. Money purse with various articles and also railway pass of the complainant and also a mobile telephone instrument of the complainant were seized from the custody of the applicant no.1. Also one knife was recovered from the custody of the applicant no.1. On the next date the applicant no.2 was arrested and there was recovery of one knife at the instance of the accused no.2 on revealing his whereabouts during the investigation. 3 Identification parade was conducted after about a month and both the accused were identified by the victim woman. 4 Considering the above factual position, whether or not it was proper or authentic identification of the applicants is the question to be ascertained at the time of trial. Suffice it to say that at this juncture there is a prima facie case against both the applicants so far as their arrest and recovery of articles at their instance. In the result, it is not a fit case in which ssp 3 appln2333.sxw the applicants can be released on bail. Hence, the order : i) Criminal Application no.2333 of 2010 stands rejected. ii)However, directions are given to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter to expeditiously conduct the trial, without being influenced by the observations made in this order so far as merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)