{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2165 OF 2010 Sunil s/o Ramlal Upalkar & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 15th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No. 110/2010 with Newasa police station, Dist-Ahmednagar for an offence punishable u/s 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the applicants are in jail since 21.05.2010. It is informed that in this case, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before JMFC, Nevasa on 03.07.2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP. {2} 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Manoj Chavan, who was accompanying a truck as a security guard, which was intercepted by certain unknown persons, who had snatched a cash in the sum of Rs.3000/-from the person of the driver and also took away a jack from the said truck. It is alleged that sensing danger, two persons had shouted in the name "Rana" to run and accordingly they fled from the spot and are arrested on 12th May 2010. 4. On last occasion, when the application was on board, it was informed that though practically the investigation is over, yet the applicants were not introduced for TI parade. Today, learned APP has informed that now the charge sheet has been filed without conducting TI parade. The explanation offered by the learned APP for non conducting the TI parade is that though the complainant and his associate were summoned to participate in TI parade yet they have not responded and have not participated in the TI parade. When an offence is registered against unknown persons and if the said unknown persons are arrested and available for TI parade, and when the complainant and eye witness did not turn up for TI Parade, then merely because the cash and jack is recovered, of which no specific description was given in the compliant, it cannot be, prima facie, said that the applicants are involved in this offence. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail. {3} 5. In the result, the application is allowed. Both the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount, if not required in any other offence. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2165-10