1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1720 OF 2011 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.716 OF 2011 Uttam Shivaji Pawar .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Ms. Anjali Patil for applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 28th November, 2011 P.C. 1. The applicant herein is arrested in C.R. No.76 of 2011, (later transferred to DCB CID vide C.R. No.55 of 2011) for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 452, 395, 397, 398, 341, 427, 411, 412, 414 of Indian Penal Code read with 3, 25 of Arms Act with 37(1)(a), 135 of Bombay Police Act. The Police have so far arrested six persons with the applicant being arrested on 3rd June 2011. Two of the persons involved in the crime i.e. Amit 2 Das and Bapi Parui are absconding. In the incident of dacoity in broad daylight 1300 gms. of gold and cash of Rs.60,000/- was stolen. 2. The grounds set out in the present application for bail are that (i) F.I.R. does not mention the name of the applicant, (ii) the applicant is only receiver of the stolen property and (iii) beyond the statement of one of the accused, there is no material to connect the applicant to the offence. 3. The learned APP opposes the application contending that role of the applicant is not limited to being receiver of the stolen property. The Police have found material to indicate that the applicant had been in contact with the two absconding accused persons after commission of the crime. The Police have produced the mobile call record of the applicant, which shows that calls received by him from both the absconding accused. 4. After hearing of rival submissions and perusal of the call records produced by the police, when the court started dictating the order, Ms. Anjali Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant interrupted the dictation, 3 agitatedly demanding that the Court first verifies the telephone numbers of the absconding accused before believing the call record. She argues that there is no material available with the Police to show that the two mobile phone numbers shown from the call records are in fact of the absconding accused. This is not an application where such in depth enquiry can be done. Besides there are no allegations of malafides. It is not alleged that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the Investigating Officer. The offence alleged in the FIR is a serious offence of dacoity with attempt to cause grievous hurt. There is also charge of conspiracy. The offence was committed in broad day light. With two of the accomplices absconding who apparently were in contact, with the applicant during the period of commission of the offence and arrest of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant bail. Hence, the application is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)