FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2195 OF 2009 (Umesh s/o Samadhan Yeole vs. The State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs. U.P.Kale-Wayal, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. P.M.Shinde, AGP for the respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 24/7/2009 P.C.:- 1. On 29th may, 2009, the complainant Ravindra, with his mother, with ornaments in a bag, were proceeding on motor cycle, to weekly market. On their way, a group of 5/6 persons, traveling in CAR No.MH-20-BL 949, gave a jerk and restrained to the driver of motor cycle Ravindra, his movements were confined, the inmates in motor vehicle, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted the complainant Ravindra and his mother and robbed them of valuables worth Rs.1,68,000/- and silver valuable worth Rs.28,000/-. Alarm was raised by the complainant. The villagers in two different vehicles, associated with other villagers, on their respective motor bikes, chased the car driven by accused Umesh. Police were also communicated. They had, arranged a dragnet for apprehending the suspects and, in the net, when the car was brought under control, it was stopped with force. Three persons started running. They were chased; one of them was nabbed. While there were two more, left in the Indica car, the accused herein Umesh is one of them. 2. The Counsel informs, the accused/applicant is innocent. He had taken the car with the suspect as a fare paying passengers for pilgrimage and while returning the incident has taken place. The accused is in custody from 29.5.2009. There is no recovery from him. 3. The allegations that there is no role to Umesh/applicant, driver of the vehicle, in the light of what is discussed hereinbefore, is negatived by his role. He could not be said to be driving the vehicle innocuously or was acting on the mandate of the inmates. He had, after the incident, attempted to flee with all possible force at his command, to make his appearance with the accomplice, scarce, to decamp with the booty. In the situation, bail application lacks merits. It is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/crapln2195-09